18 Jul 12 | Events
Date: Thursday 19 July
Time: 7-8.30pm
Venue: Frontline club, 13 Norfolk Place, London W2 1QJ
Tickets: Book here
It has been a year since the Prime Minister announced an inquiry examining the culture, practices and ethics of the media in light of the phone-hacking scandal. Since then we have heard from journalists, editors, proprietors, politicians and victims of phone-hacking. As hearings come to a close and Lord Justice Leveson begins to compile his report, join Frontline and Index on Censorship for a panel discussion, followed by Q&A on what the Inquiry has learned and what it should achieve.
Will new regulation damage the free press? How should public interest be defined? Can we ensure protection for sources and whistleblowers? How should relationships between journalists, proprietors, politicians and police be conducted in the future?
Panel includes:
David Aaronovitch, writer, broadcaster, commentator and regular columnist for The Times. He is author of Voodoo Histories: The role of Conspiracy Theory in Modern History and Paddling to Jerusalem: An Aquatic Tour of Our Small Country. Twitter: @DAaronovitch
Brian Cathcart, professor of journalism at Kingston University London and founder of the Hacked Off campaign. He served as specialist adviser to the commons media select committee in 2008-10. He was a journalist at Reuters, the Independent and the New Statesman, and has written books about the murders of Stephen Lawrence and Jill Dando, as well as on the history of nuclear science. Twitter: @BrianCathcart
Helen Lewis, deputy editor at the New Statesman. As well as commissioning and editing, she writes for the NS magazine and blogs for its website, with favoured topics including comedy, feminism, politics and computer games. She has also written forEdge magazine, the Stylist, Square Meal and the Guardian; she reviews the papers on Sky News and has appeared on the Today programme, Woman’s Hour and The Daily Politics. Twitter:@helenlewis
Angela Phillips, senior lecturer in journalism at Goldsmiths College, author of Good Writing for Journalists and co-author of Changing Journalism. She has been a journalist for over 30 years, starting in the alternative press of the 1970s and moving on to work for national newspapers, magazines, television and radio (the BBC and independents). She is also the chair of the Ethics Committee of the Coordinating Committee for Media Reform and gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry on Friday 13 July, 2012. Twitter: @AngelaELL
You can read our policy note on the key challenges for the Leveson Inquiry below:
Freedom of the Press, Governance and Press Standards: Key Challenges for the Leveson Inquiry
06 Jul 12 | Index Index, minipost, United Kingdom
Scientific journal Nature won a libel claim today that has lasted three years. Egyptian scientist Mohamed El Naschie had argued the journal had defamed him in a November 2008 story, which alleged he used his editorial privilege to self-publish numerous papers he had written and which would not have been published elsewhere due to poor quality and lack of peer review. At the High Court today Mrs Justice Sharp rejected El Naschie’s claim, accepting the defendants’ defences of justification, honest comment and the Reynolds privilege for responsible journalism on a matter of public interest.
26 Jun 12 | Uncategorized
Denis MacShane MP today called for an end to corporate libel bullying of consumer groups and criticised the law firm Schillings for “showering writs” on consumer groups, websites and lawyers.
Speaking in support of the introduction of a new clause in the defamation bill that would bar corporations from suing for libel, the MP for Rotherham and former Europe Minister criticised the practice of “civil recovery”, where retailers hire firms to pursue shoplifters for compensation, describing it as “a £15-million-pound racket”.
Schillings has been sending intimidating letters to consumer forums, solicitors and consumer advice groups. The consumer website Legal Beagles today published a letter it received from the law firm.
Acting on behalf civil recovery firm Retail Loss Prevention (RLP), Schillings accused Legal Beagles of a ”vindictive campaign of harassment” and ”defamation” and demanded that the site supply the personal information of some of their members who posted comments on the site.
In May RLP lost a landmark case — the first “civil recovery” case to be contested. Two teenage girls were caught shoplifting, but although the goods were recovered and put on sale, the retailer claimed that its total losses amounted to almost £300. On cross-examination, this was demonstrated to be an exaggeration. The case represents a serious blow to RLP’s business, now that the amounts demanded in compensation have been challenged.
However, instead of retiring gracefully, RLP employed Schillings to threaten not only Legal Beagles but the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB), along with one of its employees and solicitors representing the defendants in the case.
According to research by CAB, more than 750,000 people have been asked to make substantial payments to civil recovery firms since 1998 — and there are concerns that it is the vulnerable who are most at risk.
MacShane pushed for a new clause that would signal to Retail Loss Prevention that “their little game is over”. The Libel Reform Campaign, which includes Index on Censorship, is calling for measures to restrict corporations from using libel laws to silence criticism. Corporations would still be able to use malicious falsehood legislation and company directors could sue in their own name.
The clause was put to the vote in the last session of the public bill committee on the defamation bill today, but was defeated. But the House of Lords can still push this urgent reform through.
Jo Glanville is Editor of Index on Censorship
26 Jun 12 | Uncategorized
In May 2011, I wrote about the epic libel battle between a south London primary school, Durand Academy, and Lambeth Council. Durand had been funding a defamation action over three emails in which Lambeth’s Chief Auditor raised concerns about the school’s management. At the time, costs in the case were already believed to have exceeded £100,000.
This week it was announced that the case had finally reached a happy conclusion. On 25 June, the day that the full libel trial was due to begin, Durand’s barrister stood up in court and announced: “The claimants feel they have achieved the purpose for which they brought these proceedings and can now draw a line under this matter.” (See statement below)
Whereas the claimants had been concerned that a briefing note sent round by Lambeth’s then Chief Auditor, Mohammed Khan, had made “a serious allegation of financial impropriety,” the defendants had made it clear that “it was never Mr Khan’s intention to make such an allegation, which they accept would have been quite untrue”. The defendants also accepted that “the claimants were upset by the contents of the briefing note, and they regret this”.
All good then. This unfortunate misunderstanding has now been resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. Except that, given the nature of English libel law, to get this far both sides will have had to spend enormous amounts of money. Interim judgements like this one don’t come cheap. In the previous libel case Durand were involved in — against the father of a former teacher at the school — their side alone incurred legal fees of over £244,000.
Given that in the latest case both Lambeth and Durand are state-funded bodies, whoever is picking up the inevitably substantial tab, the taxpayer seems destined to be the loser. It is still difficult to find a better illustration of the urgent need for libel reform than the case of Durand Academy.
McLaughlin Ors -V- Lambeth Anor – Signed SIOC
Richard Wilson is a freelance writer and blogger. He is the author of Titanic Express and Don’t Get Fooled Again. He tweets at @dontgetfooled
