Libel after Eady
Eady stepping down as top libel judge does not affect the need for libel reform
By David Allen Green Published 14 September 2010 13:46
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.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















9 comments
my latest information is that this mp involved in this scandal that i cant name for legal reasons has gone to the high court to obtain an injuction against a certain newspaper releasing this story on friday,watch this space all will be revealed in the weeks ahead.
About time they got their fingers out and did a wholescale revision of libel law. Some celebs have used it to gag the media to cover up their indiscretions.
I'm sure some of those would be covered by confidentiality.
But, what happens when say a civil servant someone 'whistleblows' ashappened in the MPs Expenses scandal' It might have been in the public interest to reveal, but if no criminal acts were committed by MPs, was the confidentiality of the Dept breached. There is a strong argument to say it was. Qute a few MPs suffered a loss in their reputation; many lost their livelyhood because they weren't reselected.
Friday awaited with anticipation. Hopefully its the straw that breaks this wretched Coalitions back. An MPs private life has a bearing on his/her public life. The two should not be separable.
Swatantra, you have missed the point completely. The indiscretions of celebs are none of our business, and should be protected by privacy law unless they are relevant to a role they might have in public policy (which in the case of a typical celeb is highly unlikely).
The need for libel reform is to protect those who reveal matters of genuine public interest, such as fraud, unsafe medical treatments, corporate disregard for public health, government and military misconduct and the like.
While the thrust of this article may be true the issue of, "particular law firms" should not be so readily dismissed. The abuse of costs by some firms is a factor in the misuse of libel laws.
Amid all the endless hyperbole about freedom of speech, it would be welcome if the libel reform campaigners made some occasional acknowledgement that journalistic incompetence and dishonesty have been responsible for some appalling reputational damage over the years. In this respect, we all know that some very great wrongs have been perpetrated (and will continue to be so), which makes much of the libel reform rhetoric of the past year or so look embarrassingly overblown and self-serving. Some humility wouldn't do any harm.
i cant reveal my sources because of the official secrets act,but on friday a political story is about to break concerning a sitting mp that might bring this coalition goverment down.
If its just an MP and not a Cabinet Minister, I doubt if it will. Unless it involves a criminal act or financial scandal, I doubt if it will. But why wait till Friday?