Tag Archives: defamation

Number of libel claims last year highest in a decade, claims law firm

Leave a reply

More defamation claims were issued in the high court last year than in any year since 1998, according to London law firm Reynolds Porter Chamberlain.

Figures released yesterday by the firm reveal that 298 claims were issued in 2009, a 15 per cent rise on the 259 in 2008.

The figure for 2009 is also the highest since the introduction of civil prodedure rules in 1999, known as the Woolf reforms, which were designed to reduce the risk of costly disputes and aid pre-court settlements.

Jaron Lewis, media partner at RPC says: “This is the third year in a row where the number of claims has increased, firmly putting to bed the notion that libel law is not a serious challenge for the media. There are now nearly 50 per cent more libel claims each year than there were three years ago.

“Despite efforts to reduce the likelihood of expensive defamation litigation, the number of claims has been creeping up consistently as claimants continue to rely on favourable laws to bring expensive and often unnecessary litigation through the courts.”

RPC points to the increasing number of defamation cases being brought by new law firms, amount of material published on a daily basis, particularly online, and a rise in the number of claims brought relating to allegations of involvement with extremist groups and terrorism.

According to Lewis, the number of claims reaching trial has remained constant, suggesting that more claims are being settled or withdrawn before trial.

Libel reform coverage on Journalism.co.uk Editors’ Blog

Jack of Kent: Bercow makes a stand for libel reform

Leave a reply

At the end of last week, news broke that think-tank MigrationWatch had threatened political commentator Sally Bercow with libel action following comments she made on Sky News in August about a Daily Express story on migration.

Her comments reportedly included reference to what she perceived as the oversimplification of arguments made in the article, which included statistics from MigrationWatch, adding that the story was “fairly dangerous propaganda”, based on case documents posted by author Richard Wilson on his blog.

According to a release from the Libel Reform Campaign, Bercow, who is the wife of House of Commons speaker John Bercow, received a letter from MigrationWatch’s chairman Sir Andrew Green’s solicitors demanding an apology and legal costs as a result of her comments.

Yesterday lawyer David Allen Green announced on his ‘Jack of Kent’ blog that he had been instructed to act in Bercow’s defence to any libel action. Discussing the context of the case he said the current state of free expression is “depressing”.

But our ‘banning’ culture in respect of free expression is not inevitable and can be reversed; there is no good reason why the first reaction of so many people to unwelcome statements is to get the law involved, and then there is no good reason for so many police officers, judges, and officials to allow them to do so.

(…) Sally Bercow could have just quietly apologised, perhaps with the pre-prepared humble apology which was attached to the threatening letter. But she chose not to do so. She has chosen instead to make a stand for her right as a political commentator to respond to news stories in the way she did. She wants to show how threats like this to political commentators – and also journalists – support the need for libel reform.

The case has also been highlighted by the Libel Reform Campaign as what they claim is “proof” of the need for defamation law reform. A new defamation bill is already expected to be drafted in 2011 by the government. Jo Glanville, editor of the Index on Censorship added:

MigrationWatch should not be using our libel laws to silence criticism of their approach over immigration. Sally Bercow now faces the same ordeal as Simon Singh with potentially bankrupting costs, years of her life wasted in Court, all for expressing an opinion. It really presses home just how important the coalition’s pledge of a libel reform bill is.

MigrationWatch had no further comment to make at this time.

The Spectator: Alan Rusbridger backs Lord Lester’s defamation bill

Leave a reply

Writing for the Spectator, Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger gives his views on libel legislation in the UK and its effect on press freedom. Rusbridger gives his backing to Lord Lester’s defamation bill:

Lester is optimistic that the government will stick to its promise in its May coalition agreement to back libel reform. Let’s hope he’s right. We pride ourselves as the country which invented free speech – Milton, Wilkes, Cobbett and the rest. We’ve been in some danger of losing it.

Full article on the Spectator at this link…

Teacher’s defamation suit against student newspaper dismissed

Leave a reply

A music teacher who filed a defamation suit following an article written by a high-school student has had her case dismissed by a county judge.

According to a report by MyNews4, Kathleen Archey, a teacher at Churchill High School in Nevada, claimed student Lauren MacLean’s student newspaper report outlining parental complaints about the way students were selected for a choir competition was defamatory and negligent.

MacLean wrote that she tried to interview Archey to get her side of the story. Archey said MacLean pursued her; even after she refused to talk. Archey claimed defamation and sued MacLean’s faculty advisor, the principal, the superintendent and a local newspaper that picked up the story.

The faculty advisor issued a statement to the news site following the dismissal of the case.

The decision proves what I said the entire time–my reporter Lauren did everything correctly, told the truth, and that’s been proven with the dismissal of the lawsuit on the grounds of frivolity. There were no grounds to it whatsoever. The judge stated there was not a single sentence in the article that was untrue or defamatory.

Hatip: Techdirt

Jamaica’s libel reform proposals highlight issues ignored in England

Leave a reply

The International Forum for Responsible Media blog has a post up on proposed libel law reforms in Jamaica.

As Inforrm points out, the current common law of libel in Jamaica is the same as that in England and Wales, offering an interesting comparison when looking at how their authorities have approached reform over the last three years.

The blog lists the recommendations made in 2007 by a committee assembled by the country’s prime minister to assess its defamation laws, from changes to the limitation period which would match it to English law and the introduction of a defence of ‘triviality’, to guidelines for the assessment of damages. But much like English libel law in recent times, the years have now passed with no actual reform yet to speak of.

A Joint Select Committee was set up to consider this report and has not yet reached any conclusion. The Media Association of Jamaica and the Press Association of Jamaica made joint submissions to this Committee which, in general, supported the recommendations but raised additional points on the capping of damages and a “wire services” defence.

The Small Report is interesting as it shows how another jurisdiction – with similar libel laws to those in England and Wales – has grappled with the problems of reform. It is particularly noteworthy that in Recommendations eight and nine it has directly confronted issues of “remedial reform” which are ignored by the Libel Reform Campaign and by Lord Lester’s Defamation Bill.

See the full post here…

LIVE: Follow the Defamation Bill debate

Leave a reply

The second reading of Lord Lester’s Defamation Bill takes place today with 22 peers debating it in the House of Lords.

The bill proposes significant changes to current libel legislation to address online publishing and could also offer greater protection for journalists reporting on parliamentary proceedings.

Journalism.co.uk is following the action – the reading starts at 10am – and we’ll be adding updates to this blog as they come in. You can also watch a livestream of the session on the UK Parliament website.

Follow the ‘more’ link below for previous entries.

2:15-2:30pm:

Lord Lester closes the reading, responding to individual comments.

He confirms that sites hosting third party comments, such as mumsnet, would be classified as innocent facilitators online and therefore not liable.

He adds that his bill was always aimed at protecting vulnerable parties.

“I am not interested in creating a bill for the media, I am interested in the individual, the critic, the newspaper.

“I am very glad others who are not lawyers took part in the debate, this is too important a subject to be left to just the legal profession.”

In response to the justice minister’s announcement that the government will draw up a draft law, he says he wondered if he was “alive at all or if I am in heaven, because I wasn’t expecting this response”.

“What he has said is extremely encouraging, indicates an open mindness to reform (…) and I’m sure that it’s better for the government to have a draft bill and then a joint committee looking at it across both houses.

“Then hoping we are in good health an actual bill that will start in this house.”

In a final vote the bill was agreed to be given a second reading.

Continue reading →

Lord Lester’s Defamation Bill debate live on parliament website this morning

1 Reply

The second reading of Lord Lester’s Defamation Bill, which would introduce sweeping changes to current libel legislation in England and Wales, will take place at 10:00am today.

You can watch the debate live via the UK parliament website – Journalism.co.uk will be reporting what happens.

The bill, which received its first reading in front of parliament on 26 May, could offer greater protection for journalists covering parliamentary proceedings and seeks to update libel legislation in light of online publishing.

The bill proposes to:

  • Introduce a statutory defence of responsible publication on a matter of public interest;
  • Clarify the defences of justification and fair comment, renamed as ‘truth’ and ‘honest opinion’;
  • Respond to the problems of the internet age, including multiple publications and the responsibility of Internet Service Providers and hosters;
  • Protect those reporting on proceedings in parliament and other issues of public concern;
  • Require claimants to show substantial harm, and corporate bodies to show financial loss;
  • Encourage the speedy settlement of disputes without recourse to costly litigation.

“My main concern is with the chilling effect, where NGOs, regional newspapers and other more vulnerable publishers fear that they may get caught up in costly libel procedures. That is the main thing the bill is concerned with, to reduce or try to eliminate an unnecessary chilling effect,” Lord Lester told Journalism.co.uk in June.

Today’s reading, which is expected to last until lunchtime, will be debated by 22 peers, including a speech from Press Complaints Commission chair Baroness Peta Buscombe. A full list of those speaking can be seen on the Government Whips Office website.

The second reading is another step forward in the Libel Reform Campaign, led by Sense About Science, English PEN and Index on Censorship, which calls for extensive changes to existing libel legislation, in particular a reduction in costs for defendants.
Mike Harris, public affairs manager of the Libel Reform Campaign, told Journalism.co.uk:

Lord Lester’s Bill is the first attempt at wholesale reform of our libel laws in 70 years and provides a real opportunity to fundamentally rethink their purpose. The Libel Reform Campaign and our 52,000 supporters have made the case that reform is necessary – and that Parliament needs to take forward legislative changes rather than leaving the law to the subjectivity of judges. We hope that at the second reading debate Peers back Lord Lester’s Bill to open up a conversation about how we rebalance our laws to protect both free expression and reputation.

But some commentators who have been following the campaign’s efforts urge a note of caution about the likely progress of the bill. Blogger Jack of Kent (a.k.a. David Allen Green) told Journalism.co.uk why:

The Lord Lester Bill is good news, but only to an extent. It ranges widely, and so the debate in the Lords can also range widely. It contains some interesting proposals, especially on striking out and the capacity of corporations to sue.  However, the Bill has little chance of making any further progress, unless the government suddenly chooses to devote time and departmental resources in supporting it. The best we can realistically hope for is that a parliamentary committee is formed which can then seek to take the bill forward. Overall, I would put the chances of the Bill being enacted in full or in part by 2011 as under 50:50.

New York Observer: The end of libel in the US?

Leave a reply

According to the New York Observer, major US publishers have seen a steady decrease in libel suits against their titles – grinding to a halt entirely, according to lawyers for the New York Times Co. and Time Inc. A recent US study suggests that the number of libel trials in America in the 2000s was 50 per cent less than in the 1980s.

But why, and what does this mean for freedom of expression and publishers’ freedoms?

Media lawyers have a few theories to explain the rapid decline. A track record of limited success for plaintiffs discourages people from filing such cases-clearly a good for media organizations. In addition, the web has allowed for quick corrections, heading lawsuits off before they are even filed. Some individuals now even post their own responses on the Web, allowing them to vent steam before heading to court.

On the darker side, some media pros wonder whether the declining finances of media companies may be limiting the type of journalism that used to anger subjects and produce libel suits.

Full post at this link…

#SinghBCA: BCA speaks – why the ‘time is right’ to drop libel case against Simon Singh

1 Reply

Following this morning’s breaking news that the British Chiropractic Association has abandoned its libel case against Simon Singh after he won an appeal on meaning in the Court of Appeal in early April, we have received this statement from the BCA:

Having carefully considered its position in the light of the judgment of the Court of Appeal (1st April 2010), the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) has decided to discontinue its libel action against Simon Singh.

As previously made clear, the BCA brought the claim because it considered that Simon Singh had made a serious allegation against its reputation, namely, that the BCA promoted treatments that it knew to be “bogus”.

The Honourable Mr Justice Eady, the UK’s most experienced defamation judge, agreed with the BCA’s interpretation of the article and ruled that it made a serious factual allegation of dishonesty.

The Court of Appeal, in its recent judgement, has taken a very different view of the article. On its interpretation, the article did not make any factual allegation against the BCA at all; it was no more than an expression of ‘honest opinion’ by Simon Singh.

While it still considers that the article was defamatory of the BCA, the decision provides Dr Singh with a defence such that the BCA has taken the view that it should withdraw to avoid further legal costs being incurred by either side.

As those who have followed the publicity surrounding this case will know, Simon Singh has said publicly that he had never intended to suggest that the BCA had been dishonest. The BCA accepts this statement, which goes some way to vindicating its position.

The BCA takes seriously its duty and responsibilities to members and to chiropractic patients. The BCA has considered seeking leave to take this matter to the Supreme Court and has been advised there are strong grounds for appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment. However, while it was right to bring this claim at the outset, the BCA now feels that the time is right for the matter to draw to a close.

Will sorting out the press help push through libel reform?

1 Reply

There was a central conflict at last night’s Frontline Club debate addressing English libel and privacy law and super-injunctions.

How do you relax legal mechanisms, while preventing tabloids and privacy-intruding publications reaping the benefits?

Echoing comments made by Mr Justice Eady in a talk at City University London last month, Carter-Ruck senior partner Nigel Tait claimed that super-injunctions were mainly used in celebrity privacy cases, to protect medical records and former lovers’ revelations, for example.

Carter-Ruck, he said, had issued about 12 injunctions in the past year (shockingly, no central record of the number issued exists).

To let up on these would be an invitation to the tabloids, seemed to be the implication.

David Leigh, head of investigations at the Guardian, finally put his finger on it: there is a problem in his own trade, he said, exemplified by the tabloid treatment of the McCanns.

“Unless we put the newspaper houses in order, it’s very difficult to move the debate about libel reform further forward,” he said.
“We’ve got to reform the newspapers.”

As he’s indicated in the past, Leigh believes self regulatory body the Press Complaints Commission to be “a fraud”.

A television producer in the audience added that he’d like to see a press complaints commission “worthy of its name”.

But science writer Dr Simon Singh, still fighting a legal action pursued by the British Chiropractic Association, doesn’t think this conflict needs to be a huge problem.

In fact, making libel law costs cheaper, he said, will allow more people to sue – forcing tabloids to think twice about the things they write about non-celebrities.

I spoke to  Simon Singh afterwards. He said:

“All of the changes we’re talking about do not affect an individual’s right to protect their reputation.”

“Nobody would want to encourage salacious gossip or tittle-tattle,” Singh said. Their reforms address statutory public interest, libel tourism and preventing big companies suing bloggers and individuals.

“If you drive down costs massively, what that means is that not only can celebrities sue to protect their reputation but that the ordinary man and woman in the street can sue to protect their reputations.

“We’re talking about extending justice and fairness to people, rather than making it an exclusive game for the rich and powerful.”

“At the moment a tabloid could defame an individual and perhaps take a risk that person wouldn’t be able to afford to fight back. If you drive down the costs massively, tabloids would actually have to think twice.”