Journalism.co.uk Editors' Blog » Legal

Share your views on defamation and the internet

Judith Townend — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:39:46 +0000

Writetoreply.org, a site which allows users to comment on public reports, has uploaded (unofficially) the Ministry of Justice consultation, Defamation and the internet: the multiple publication rule (see Journalism.co.uk report here).

The consultation was published on the 16 September 2009 and closes on 16 December 2009. WritetoReply will send all the comments received on its site to the Ministry of Justice.

A ‘Quick Start’ guide: http://writetoreply.org/defamation/quick-start/

Full post at this link…

Similar Posts:

PCC chair should resign over phone hacking evidence denial, says lawyer

Judith Townend — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:05:45 +0000

Mark Lewis, the lawyer whose phone hacking evidence has been challenged by the Press Complaints Commission chair, Baroness Peta Buscombe, has called for her resignation.

A Metropolitan Police detective inspector had been wrongly quoted in phone hacking evidence given to the House of Commons, Buscombe yesterday told delegates at the Society of Editors’ annual conference.

A letter to the PCC from police lawyers claimed that only ‘a handful’ of people were targeted by News of the World, Buscombe cited, contradicting evidence given by lawyer Mark Lewis to the Commons select committee investigating media law and press regulation, in September.

As reported by Press Gazette, Buscombe said: “This letter says that [Detective Inspector] – Mr Maberly has in fact been wrongly quoted on the 6,000 figure. The reliable evidence, we were told in an email confirming the contents of the letter, is that given by assistant commissioner John Yates to the select committee, who referred to only a ‘handful’ of people being potential victims.”

Following Buscombe’s claims at the conference, Mark Lewis from Stripe Solicitors has today issued a fierce letter to the PCC, copied to the chair of the Commons Select Committee and the Press Association. Addressing Buscombe, Lewis wrote: “I am sure that upon mature reflection you will appreciate that in doing so you have betrayed any semblance of impartiality and regrettably ought to find yourself in a position where the honourable action would be for you to resign.”

Lewis maintains the accuracy of his evidence: ‘the conversation that I had with DS Maberly was witnessed by at least two other people, including the barrister for [Professional Footballers' Association chief executive] Gordon Taylor.’

His letter is reproduced in full below:

Dear Baroness

I am deeply concerned that you have thought it proper to criticise my evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee without either having the courtesy or the propriety to put the allegations to me first. I regret that your failure to act properly has compromised any veneer of impartiality that you sought to create.

The different versions of events that appear to have been given do not even amount to a conflict of evidence. It seems that you have chosen to accept the contents of a hearsay letter constructed on behalf of the Metropolitan Police rather than the first hand evidence that was given by me to the Select Committee. I am sure that upon mature reflection you will appreciate that in doing so you have betrayed any semblance of impartiality and regrettably ought to find yourself in a position where the honourable action would be for you to resign.

If it assists, the conversation that I had with DS Maberly was witnessed by at least two other people, including the barrister for Gordon Taylor. The context of the conversation was the resolution of the application for Third Party Disclosure against the Metropolitan Police. You will be aware that the Metropolitan Police had not told victims of phone hacking that they were victims. It is a matter of great concern that you have still not sought to examine the underlying documentation that would disprove the contents of the letter sent by the Metropolitan Police. I was sceptical of the “whitewash” report that the PCC had issued but had satisfied myself that the report was carefully constructed to record that you had investigated nothing and consequently found nothing. My concern now is that you have magnified those findings in such a way as to suggest that there were a mere handful of victims.

My evidence was clear. DS Maberly had told me the 6000 figure but that he would not give me everything, just enough “to hang the News of the World”.

If you had checked the underlying documents you would have realised that the Police evidence was no more than “spin”. I find myself incredulous at the crassness of your statement. Even on the Gordon Taylor case, there were more examples of phone hacking than the “handful” that was mentioned within your report or by the Metropolitan Police. Of course, it suits the Metropolitan Police to try and downplay their woeful failures to notify all the victims of unlawfulness. In the Taylor case there were numerous individuals whose phone messages were hacked, and whose numbers were therefore acquired by the enquiry agent Glenn Mulcaire.

The dishonesty of the News of the World position was demonstrated by the News of the World’s initial denial of the use of information that had been obtained by unlawful phone hacking. It was only after the disclosure of the “transcript for Neville” document that the News of the World were forced to concede that the evidence that they had given was false. It is astonishing that you are not more concerned that a “Statement of Truth” was put forward by the News of the World that was incorrect. Evidence was given to the Court that was untrue. That evidence was given on behalf of a national newspaper that enjoys a very substantial readership. Why has the PCC not taken action against the News of the World? Why did you not mention that aspect within your speech to the Society of Editors?

The settlement of the Taylor case followed a Court Order that the News of the World must identify the individual known as ‘Ryle’ . The News of the World did not do so and has not done so. Have they given that information to the PCC? Have you listened to the recording?

Rather the News of the World chose to settle the case rather than identify their own employee who had been engaged in that unlawful activity. It is noteworthy that your report chose not to investigate that aspect. The PCC can be nothing unless it is a beacon of truth prepared to expose and criticise its own members where it is proper to do so.

Whilst I am as strong an advocate as there can be for a free press as a balance to Parliament and the Judiciary, I do so by balancing the absolute standard of honesty and the need to protect privacy. The unlawful access of phone messages in order to find tittle-tattle is wholly unacceptable by any decent standard. I should not have to remind you that it is your job to enforce those proper standards so that we can have an honest and free press not just a free press.

I will debate this issue with you in any forum. A free and open debate is called for after the findings of the Select Committee. If DS Maberly wishes to expose himself to cross-examination by the Select Committee than he should offer himself up to give evidence and disclose all the underlying documentation that will show exactly how many individuals had their phones hacked and how many individuals were listened to.

Yours truly

Mark Lewis

Letter to John Whittingdale MP

Dear Mr Whittingdale

I enclose a copy of a letter that I have sent to Baroness Buscombe as a result of her suggestion that I misled your Committee. I have not misled it at all and standby the evidence that I gave.

If the Committee wishes to recall me then I will gladly attend. I invite the Metropolitan Police to volunteer the disclosure that they gave in the Taylor case as well as the wider disclosure that they refused to give in order that I can demonstrate the falsity of their position.

Yours sincerely

Mark Lewis

Copy of letter to Press Association

Similar Posts:

Video: Simon Singh on libel tourism and the ‘chilling effect’ on science journalism

Laura Oliver — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:43:19 +0000

Simon Singh, the science writer facing a libel action brought against him by the British Chiropractic Association, attended this week’s launch of the Index on Censorship (IOC) and English Pen’s proposed libel bill.

In this short video he talks about the current case of cardiologist Peter Wilmshurst (something Journalism.co.uk is looking into) and the chilling effect of libel on science writing:

Similar Posts:

Richard Wilson: ‘No one knows how many secret super-injunctions are currently in force’

Judith Townend — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:42:36 +0000

Richard Wilson, author of Don’t Get Fooled and central blogger in the Trafigura/Guardian/Carter-Ruck episode, reports back from a meeting of the UK Parliament Joint Committee on Human Rights which focused on ’super-injunctions’.

Wilson, along with journalists, editors, MPs, Lords and lawyers (including two senior partners from Carter-Ruck) took part:

“[N]o one knows how many secret super-injunctions are currently in force. While the UK state seems bent on meticulously recording every detail of its citizens phone, email and web-browsing habits, it is positively lackadaisical about tracking its own media gagging orders. While each individual super-injunction is (we have to hope) being kept on file somewhere by the judiciary, no-one, anywhere, is collating information about the overall picture.”

Full story at this link…

Similar Posts:

Big Brother Watch: How an investigative journalist lost his job because of the UK’s libel system

Laura Oliver — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:16:41 +0000

Fascinating post from journalist Willard Foxton, until recently in charge of investigative title Chambers Report, on how the threat of libel caused him to lose his job.

Foxton ran a story on a Middle East branch of a British law firm, whose expansion had gone ‘catastrophically’ wrong. Despite countless interviews, multiple sources and an acceptance of truth from the firm, the title was still issued with a writ by the individual at the centre of the story – the only person Foxton had not asked if it was true (as part of the Reynolds defence) for fear of an injunction against publication.

“[I]n this case, the evidence was so strong (right down to senior people referring off the record to this individual as ‘the worst person we have ever hired’), I felt totally confident that we were safe,” writes Foxton.

“I was wrong. Really, really quite wrong.”

The cost of defending the legal action – and the potential cost of losing – were too much for the publisher: the magazine was closed and Foxton fired.

“It’s not just the publisher who could get sued either – because of the state of our libel laws, our distributors, our internet host, everyone even connected to us or the toxic-but-true article could be sued.

“He [my employer] sat me down in his office, told me he respected me as a journalist – respected me so much, in fact that he wants me to keep writing for his publishing firm – but said that libel scared him far too much to take risks.

“So there you go. A rich man in the emirates launches a libel writ against a UK publication for writing true things, and the publication gets shut down. I lost my job; the journalist who wrote the story received a written warning about his conduct. Why? Because we uncovered and exposed the truth.”

Full post at this link…

Similar Posts:

HTFP: Newsquest wins court ruling in defence of user-generated content

Laura Oliver — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:49:31 +0000

A court ruling obtained by UK regional newspaper group Newsquest could have a significant impact on the issue of what protection publishers have in legal cases based on user-generated content on their sites.

In a defamation action, Newsquest had been sued by a solicitor Imran Karim following a report that he had been struck off by the Law Society.

The story attracted a range of comments, both in support and critical of Karim, which were removed by Newsquest as soon as the legal claim from Karim was received.

“Mr Justice Eady concluded that Newsquest websites were acting as hosts of the reader comments for the purposes of Regulation 19 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 and therefore would not be liable for any damages even if the material was unlawful,” reports HoldtheFrontPage.co.uk.

“He said Newsquest had fulfilled the conditions for protection under Regulation 19, namely that the comments had been posted directly to the sites by third-party contributors without intervention by Newsquest, and that they had acted expeditiously to remove access to the material.”

Full story at this link…

Similar Posts:

EPUK: Photographer wins copyright infringement case against Mirror Group Newspapers

Judith Townend — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:44:54 +0000

Photography site EPUK publishes a report by law firm Swan Turton on a celebrity photographer’s copyright victory over Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN).

“In a judgment issued on October 16 which has potentially important ramifications for the photography industry, the High Court held that Daily Mirror publisher MGN Ltd had infringed copyright in photographs included in back copies of newspapers it was making available online to paid subscribers.”

Full post at this link…

Similar Posts:

Independent.co.uk: Government plans for secret inquests

Judith Townend — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:20:50 +0000

“Plans to introduce secret inquiries into controversial deaths from which the public and bereaved families could be banned are to be pushed through the House of Commons by the Government,” reports the Independent.

“Last night ministers suffered a humiliating defeat for the proposals in the House of Lords, but insisted that they were ‘clear’ that ‘harmful material’ must not be made public, and would reintroduce the measures in the Commons.”

Full story at this link…

Similar Posts:

Guardian.co.uk: Government to convene senior politicians summit to ‘reinforce’ freedom of the press

Judith Townend — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:04:41 +0000

The Guardian reports on yesterday’s parliamentary debate on the effect of libel law on reporting Parliament:

“[Justice minister Bridget Prentice] announced that the government would convene a summit of senior politicians to discuss ways to ‘reinforce’ the freedom of the press in reporting parliament and the historic principle of parliamentary privilege.”

(…)

“In the debate today MPs from all parties criticised the issuing ’super-injunctions’ against the press and their concerns were echoed by Prentice: ‘We are very concerned that they are being used more commonly and particularly in the area of libel and privacy, and the secretary of state for justice [Jack Straw] has already asked senior officials in the department to discuss that matter with lawyers from the newspapers and we are involving the judiciary in a consultation too.’”

Guardian report at this link…

The Guardian also live-blogged the event at this link.

Similar Posts:

Trafigura dumped as art prize sponsor following ‘recent events’

Judith Townend — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:37:44 +0000

As noted by Richard Wilson, author of Don’t Get Fooled Again, and one of the bloggers to first publish MP Paul Farrelly’s secret injunction question on his blog, Trafigura – the third largest independent oil trader in the world – has been dropped as a sponsor of what was formerly the Trafigura Art Prize.

Cynthia Corbett’s art prize will no longer be sponsored by Trafigura, and will instead be renamed the Young Masters Art Prize, a release from the gallery stated.

“Since the prize was conceived two years ago we approached various art foundations and corporate organizations to sponsor an art prize. We feel that the recent events involving Trafigura are detracting from the main purpose of the prize, which is to celebrate emerging and newly established artists,” said Corbett.

Sixteen international artists are currently exhibiting work at the Young Masters exhibition, which opened at The Old Truman Brewery last week (the day before Trafigura dropped its injunction against the Guardian) with over 1200 visitors. The prize will seek funding for the prize money from alternative sponsors in future years; this year the prize will be non-monetary, the release stated.

Richard Wilson is currently hosting the ‘Alternative Trafigura Art Prize’.

For the latest on the Guardian-Trafigura-Carter-Ruck injunction triangle, see Journalism.co.uk stories at this link.

Similar Posts: