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.)

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Can Philip Hammond save the Conservatives from public anger at their DUP deal?

The Chancellor has the wriggle room to get close to the DUP's spending increase – but emotion matters more than facts in politics.

The magic money tree exists, and it is growing in Northern Ireland. That’s the attack line that Labour will throw at Theresa May in the wake of her £1bn deal with the DUP to keep her party in office.

It’s worth noting that while £1bn is a big deal in terms of Northern Ireland’s budget – just a touch under £10bn in 2016/17 – as far as the total expenditure of the British government goes, it’s peanuts.

The British government spent £778bn last year – we’re talking about spending an amount of money in Northern Ireland over the course of two years that the NHS loses in pen theft over the course of one in England. To match the increase in relative terms, you’d be looking at a £35bn increase in spending.

But, of course, political arguments are about gut instinct rather than actual numbers. The perception that the streets of Antrim are being paved by gold while the public realm in England, Scotland and Wales falls into disrepair is a real danger to the Conservatives.

But the good news for them is that last year Philip Hammond tweaked his targets to give himself greater headroom in case of a Brexit shock. Now the Tories have experienced a shock of a different kind – a Corbyn shock. That shock was partly due to the Labour leader’s good campaign and May’s bad campaign, but it was also powered by anger at cuts to schools and anger among NHS workers at Jeremy Hunt’s stewardship of the NHS. Conservative MPs have already made it clear to May that the party must not go to the country again while defending cuts to school spending.

Hammond can get to slightly under that £35bn and still stick to his targets. That will mean that the DUP still get to rave about their higher-than-average increase, while avoiding another election in which cuts to schools are front-and-centre. But whether that deprives Labour of their “cuts for you, but not for them” attack line is another question entirely. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.

0800 7318496