Libel after Eady

Eady stepping down as top libel judge does not affect the need for libel reform

From 1 October 2010, Sir David Eady will no longer be the senior libel and privacy judge at the High Court (also see report here). He will still be able to hear libel and privacy trials -- he is not retiring outright -- but he will no longer pick and choose which media law cases go before him.

This is welcome news; but not because Mr Justice Eady is particuarly culpable as a judge. In fact, Sir David Eady is generally no worse and no better than any other judge applying the dysfunctional English law of libel. He has given almost as many heartening liberal defamation judgments as dreadfully illiberal judgments. And his contribution to the development of privacy law is commendable: the mainstream media is now less likely to intrude upon people's personal space and misuse private information just because of his rulings.

It is instead welcome news because it de-personalises a complex problem. The problems with libel law are to do with the substance of the law and the way it is litigated and threatened, and not because of any particular judge. To deride Mr Justice Eady -- or to sneer at any particular law firm -- is not the same as urging libel reform.

Libel reform is required mainly because the law wrongly elevates a private right to reputation above the public interest in free discussions on matters of vital public interest. For example, important debates about public health and the efficacy of certain medical treatments remain inhibited by the worry of libel threats. And not all writers have the sheer grit and commitment (and personal resources) of a Simon Singh.

Judges come and go; and (sadly) there will never be a shortage of lawyers who will send aggressive letters to close down contributions to public debates as long as the law allows them to do so. The replacement of Mr Justice Eady as the High Court's senior libel judge makes no real difference to the campaign for libel reform.

The awful -- indeed dispreputable -- state of English libel law will still be there the morning after he steps down.

 

David Allen Green blogs for the New Statesman on legal and policy matters. He is a City media lawyer and was shortlisted for the George Orwell blogging prize for his Jack of Kent blog.

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.)

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.