Welcome to the New Statesman website. Please sign in or register to participate in the conversation.

Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team.

Latest predictions

Public Prediction: Green energy initiatives to reduce carbon emissions?

Poll

Can we fill the Energy Gap?

Yes

32%

36%

Maybe

32%

Jobs

User login

David Allen Green

A critical and liberal look at law and policy

RSS

The draft Libel Reform Bill

The government presents its proposals.

By David Allen Green Published 15 March 2011 13:54

The government has just published a draft Libel Reform Bill and press notice.

At first glance the content is encouraging. There is a "substantial harm test" and a "Reynolds" type public-interest defence for responsible publications. There will also be curbs on "libel tourism" and an end to jury trials, unless the court orders otherwise. And, at last, there will be a single publication rule, which means that a web page is not held to have been "published" each time it is downloaded.

It does not contain everything demanded by the Libel Reform Campaign. The public-interest defence is more elaborate than hoped for -- a simple test of malice would be better than a checklist. There is also no curb on corporations maintaining suits for defamation.

So the draft bill is a promising start to the consultation exercise which is now to commence. The challenge is now to make the actual bill to be presented in the next parliamentary session to be at least as good as this, if not better.

David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman and a practising media lawyer.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Libel reform

More from David Allen Green

5 comments

Thu, 2011-03-17 04:17 — Alex (not verified)

"and an end to jury trials, unless the Court orders otherwise"

What?! In what way is that a good thing? Jury trails are a fundamental right, and in the case of libel, a hard-fought one, won by the great advocate Thomas Erskine. You are not fit to wash his boots if you seriously think this is a good idea.

The right to a jury trial is a right that was steadily eroded during the last government. Devaluing it still further is awful. Note also that the the country that has the best free speech protections (the US) protects the right to a jury trial in all civil cases, including libel, in its constitution. Why are you ignoring best practice?

"a simple test of malice would be better than a checklist"

While I actually agree with this, you should realise that this would go much further than the US has gone. In the US, the malice test only applies to "public figures",not ordinary citizens too! If going further than the US on this is the goal you seek, then fair enough, that is a legitimate opinion, but the you should the absurd pretense that this libel reform campaign is all about bringing England and Wales into line with the rest of he world on defamation law. Statements of yours like this show that it quite clearly isn't.

"There is also no curb on corporations maintaining suits for defamation"

Are you really saying that corporations have no right to a reputation, and therefore deserve no defamation protection??

Far from being a strike against large corporations, this will instead be a gift to them. If that went through, MegaCorp will be able to smear competitors (Surely an anti-competitive practice), including "Mom and Pop" businesses. How can that be a good thing?

Wed, 2011-03-16 14:11 — Pete (not verified)

Is it still the case that something like a blog counts as being published whenever it is read, rather than when it was posted?

I seem to remember seeing somewhere this being the case, but could be wrong.

Thu, 2011-03-17 18:19 — maria (not verified)

Are you stating that MageCorp have the power to seam and end one career in Uk on false allegation and accusation and get away with it?

Tue, 2011-03-15 14:17 — Stormy (not verified)

"It does not contain everything demanded by the libel reform campaign."

Better to have /something/ than nothing at all. Let's hope it's a first step in the right direction.

Tue, 2011-03-15 15:56 — David J Mudkips (not verified)

Actually, the consultation battle will be on two fronts:
One, to include more good stuff like shifting burden of proof to claimant
Two, stopping vested interests from watering down these reforms.

The fight's not done, but it's a good, solid blow!