Events | 2009.11.10
Call to reform 'repressive' libel laws
Intimidating and out-of-date laws are silencing free speech and scientific inquiry, a report claims, amid increasing controversy over England\'s status as "the libel capital of the world".
The report, released today after a year-long inquiry, says libel law needs fundamental reform to move away from its origins defending the rich and powerful.
"English libel law is preventing not only the media, but also medical science and research, NGOs and others from holding the powerful to account," said John Kampfner, chief executive of free speech organisation Index on Censorship .
"This report has got to galvanise MPs to understand the effect this is having is an affront to democratic society."
The report, by Index and English PEN , recommends 10 changes to the law, which currently forces defendants in libel cases to prove their innocence – a requirement critics say places an unfair burden on free speech. Other changes put forward include a £10,000 cap on damages – there is currently no statutory limit – and changes to the law so cases from other countries cannot be brought in London unless at least 10% of the copies of a publication involved in a case were circulated in the UK.
The report comes just days after American newspapers such as the New York Times told a Commons select committee, which is reviewing the law on libel, that they may stop selling copies in the UK and block access to their websites because of draconian libel laws.
A lawsuit in London against the Miami-based National Enquirer by actor Cameron Diaz has led it to block British readers, while the Wall Street Journal is to cease publishing its US edition in the UK.
But experts said that the use of London\'s high court as an international centre for "libel tourism" was one of many problems with UK law. According to a survey by Oxford University, the cost of defending a libel action in England and Wales is now 140 times greater than the average in other European countries.
"The libel laws in this country have gone bonkers," said Alastair Brett, legal manager at the Times newspaper. "This needs very clear thinking about. There should be a fast-track libel system for resolving disputes as quickly as possible … The vast bulk of libel actions could be sorted out by some sort of arbitration."
The law firm Carter Ruck, which represents claimants in libel actions, agreed that there was a need to bring down the costs of cases. "This is an important report," said Nigel Tait, partner at the firm. "The worst aspect is the cost. It is so expensive to bring libel cases that people settle when they should fight."
Carter Ruck\'s support today for some of the changes put forward in the report came amid continuing criticism of firms that launch expensive libel claims against journalists and other publishers, often using conditional fee agreements which result in higher costs for defendants.
"If we don\'t get reforms, what is there to stop a law firm like Carter Ruck bombarding journalists and suppressing information that is in the public interest for three years?" said Meirion Jones, producer at BBC\'s Newsnight, which is currently being sued over its reporting of oil trading firm Trafigura.
In a comment piece in the Guardian, Ken Macdonald QC, former director of public prosecutions, writes: "This is not about individual law firms and scapegoats, it is about our law being seen as intentionally repressive of free speech and scientific inquiry. If it comes to a situation where that is under assault, then our law is not fit for purpose."
For more information, please visit
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/10/libel-law-reform
Instagram is adding automatic in-app text translation - The Verge views: 1531
Here’s a ‘Brand-New’ Massive Multilingual Dataset for Machine Translation views: 1530