The draft Libel Reform Bill is a good thing

Why the proposals should be welcomed.

The draft Libel Reform Bill, published two days ago, has had a mixed reception. Those in favour of libel reform have broadly welcomed it, though some do not think it goes far enough; and many established libel practitioners have sought to minimise the draft bill's importance and novelty. Some libel veterans even say it will make no difference: it is almost as if they are discouraging the government from taking the draft bill forward at all.

However, as a practising media defence lawyer, I would say that there is a lot of good in the draft bill, and that if it were to pass into legislation in its present form it would make a marked difference to the nature of libel litigation. That is not to say that the draft bill could not be improved; but it is to say that it is misconceived and illiberal to dismiss the bill completely.

Let us start from first principles. One problem with libel litigation is that it is far too easy to bring a libel claim and thereby to threaten plausibly to bring a libel claim. This is one of the main causes of "libel chill". As it currently stands, libel is one of few areas of law where the claimant does not have to show any damage at all to threaten or actually bring a claim: damage is presumed. Until fairly recently, the courts used to allow claims where there had been no actual damage to proceed to full trial: the claimant could then get nominal damages of a penny or a pound, and may have to pay the defendant's legal costs, but there was nothing in principle preventing the claim running its full expensive course.

This complacent approach has shifted over the last few years. The courts are now more willing to allow a defendant to strike out a claim as an abuse of process where there has been little or no damage. But it is still for the defendant to make that application and at his or her own costs risk. It is not for the claimant to show there is substantial damage to the reputation, but for the defendant to show there has not been substantial damage.

The proposed clause 1 of the draft bill addresses this problem head on in a satisfactory and subtle way. By introducing a requirement that the claimant has to show substantial harm, the draft bill is in effect reformulating the tort of libel. Some established claimant lawyers are saying this will lead to more expense because of futile debates about whether there is substantial harm or not. I do not think this will be the case. It is more likely that the same lawyers will have to explain to their clients why claims cannot now be threatened because of this new requirement. Indeed, one may say that if a claimant and their lawyer thinks it is open to genuine dispute whether an alleged libel has not caused (or is not likely to cause) substantial harm, then they have no business to bring or threaten a claim in the first place.

The substantial harm test set out in clause 1 of the draft libel bill is a liberal and constructive provision, and one should be rather sceptical of the libel claimant lawyers who say it is not really needed. It is common sense that potential libel claimants should be required to show substantial harm before they can even threaten a libel case: at a stroke it weakens the might of heavy-handed "reputation management" lawyers who somehow appear to think that using legal threats is a legitimate form of pubic relations.

Equally significant, if not more so, is the proposed abolition of the presumption of a jury trial. Again, established libel lawyers will seek to downplay the importance of this provision. And it is indeed correct that jury trials are now infrequent. However, the effect of there being usually a jury trial at the end of the litigation process forces parties into years of complex and expensive interim litigation, as applications are made for striking out parts of the claim and the defence that will eventually go before the jury. Moreover, rulings on each of these interim applications can then be appealed by the losing party, sometimes all the way to the Supreme Court (formerly the House of Lords).

The mere fact of defamation cases having an eventual jury trial makes pre-trial proceedings more costly and elaborate than they need to be. Bringing them to an end will have a beneficial effect on libel litigation generally.

The proposal for a statutory public-interest defence should also be welcomed. However, the draft bill makes this defence more elaborate than it needs to be. It should be enough that the publication was on a matter of public interest and was published without malice: after all, the United States seems to manage with libel law being on a restricted basis without any grave problems. The draft bill, however, subjects the proposed public interest defence to a non-exhaustive checklist of matters to which the court should have regard. Some of these factors are common sense; however, the risk is that the courts will apply these factors in a formulaic and pedantic manner without any regard to the overall purpose of a public-interest defence.

There are other good parts to this draft bill. The "truth" and "honest opinion" defences are not merely cosmetic changes to the old "justification" and "fair-comment" defences as has been asserted by some commentators. Instead, the old defences are expressly abolished. Therefore, these new statutory defences will not necessarily be suffocated by the case law of the old defences; indeed, deployed sensibly by the courts, these new defences could mean that truth and honest opinion are full defences to any claim, unencumbered by the complexities of the current common law defences. And the proposed single-publication rule will bring certainty and sanity to libel litigation: no longer will each download constitute a fresh tort and the basis of a new libel claim.

The draft bill could be better. For example, one hopes the consultation period will address issues such as the capability of corporations to sue for libel. The issue of costs also have to be dealt with, though that will be done by other costs-specific legislation.

But, for me, the tests of this draft legislation are simple. Will it make it harder for a libel (or "reputation management") lawyer to advise his or her client that a spurious claim can be threatened? Will it make libel litigation less expensive and complex? Will it make it easier for defendants to point to complete defences when threatened? And will it make it easier for statements to be published on matters of public interest without the adverse effects of "libel chill"?

On each of these questions, the answer is cautiously affirmative. But the draft bill is not a default position: it is certainly not the case that this is what will be passed into law unless it can be improved. There is a real risk the established libel claimant lawyers will persuade the government that no legislation is really needed, other than in respect of making libel litigation cheaper to bring. In other words, after years of campaigning, there still may be no legislative change to libel law and procedure.

All this said, this draft Libel Bill is a great step forward. It is important that all right-minded people press for improvements; but it is also crucial to recognise that even these modest reforms are still up for grabs.

 

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman and is a practising media lawyer. His Jack of Kent blog chronicled the libel defence campaign of Simon Singh, 2008-10.

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman and author of the Jack of Kent blog.

His legal journalism has included popularising the Simon Singh libel case and discrediting the Julian Assange myths about his extradition case.  His uncovering of the Nightjack email hack by the Times was described as "masterly analysis" by Lord Justice Leveson.

David is also a solicitor and was successful in the "Twitterjoketrial" appeal at the High Court.

(Nothing on this blog constitutes legal advice.)

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The campaign to keep Britain in Europe must be based on hope, not fear

Together we can show the world a generous, outward-facing Britain we can all be proud of.

Today the Liberal Democrats launched our national campaign to keep Britain in Europe. With the polls showing the outcome of this referendum is on a knife-edge, our party is determined to play a decisive role in this once in a generation fight. This will not be an easy campaign. But it is one we will relish as the UK's most outward-looking and internationalist party. Together in Europe the UK has delivered peace, created the world’s largest free trade area and given the British people the opportunity to live, work and travel freely across the continent. Now is the time to build on these achievements, not throw them all away.

Already we are hearing fear-mongering from both sides in this heated debate. On the one hand, Ukip and the feuding Leave campaigns have shamelessly seized on the events in Cologne at New Year to claim that British women will be at risk if the UK stays in Europe. On the other, David Cameron claims that the refugees he derides as a "bunch of migrants" in Calais will all descend on the other side of the Channel the minute Britain leaves the EU. The British public deserve better than this. Rather than constant mud-slinging and politicising of the world's biggest humanitarian crisis since the Second World War, we need a frank and honest debate about what is really at stake. Most importantly this should be a positive campaign, one that is fought on hope and not on fear. As we have a seen in Scotland, a referendum won through scare tactics alone risks winning the battle but losing the war.

The voice of business and civil society, from scientists and the police to environmental charities, have a crucial role to play in explaining how being in the EU benefits the British economy and enhances people's everyday lives. All those who believe in Britain's EU membership must not be afraid to speak out and make the positive case why being in Europe makes us more prosperous, stable and secure. Because at its heart this debate is not just about facts and figures, it is about what kind of country we want to be.

The Leave campaigns cannot agree what they believe in. Some want the UK to be an offshore, deregulated tax haven, others advocate a protectionist, mean-hearted country that shuts it doors to the world. As with so many populist movements, from Putin to Trump, they are defined not by what they are for but what they are against. Their failure to come up with a credible vision for our country's future is not patriotic, it is irresponsible.

This leaves the field open to put forward a united vision of Britain's place in Europe and the world. Liberal Democrats are clear what we believe in: an open, inclusive and tolerant nation that stands tall in the world and doesn't hide from it. We are not uncritical of the EU's institutions. Indeed as Liberals, we fiercely believe that power must be devolved to the lowest possible level, empowering communities and individuals wherever possible to make decisions for themselves. But we recognise that staying in Europe is the best way to find the solutions to the problems that don't stop at borders, rather than leaving them to our children and grandchildren. We believe Britain must put itself at the heart of our continent's future and shape a more effective and more accountable Europe, focused on responding to major global challenges we face.

Together in Europe we can build a strong and prosperous future, from pioneering research into life-saving new medicines to tackling climate change and fighting international crime. Together we can provide hope for the desperate and spread the peace we now take for granted to the rest of the world. And together we can show the world a generous, outward-facing Britain we can all be proud of. So if you agree then join the Liberal Democrat campaign today, to remain in together, and to stand up for the type of Britain you think we should be.