Feeds

Libel reform campaigners seek £10k damages cap

Apology better than payout

The essential guide to IT transformation

English libel law imposes disproportionate restrictions on free speech, according to an independent report that recommends 10 changes to the laws. The Ministry of Justice said today that it will launch a consultation on defamation and the internet.

English PEN, a charity that promotes the human rights of writers and publishers, and Index on Censorship, a body that promotes freedom of expression, spent a year investigating English libel laws. Their joint report, Free Speech Is Not For Sale, was published today.

They say that England's libel law "was designed to serve the rich and powerful and does not reflect the interests of a modern democratic society." They have proposed 10 changes to current laws that they want the Government to introduce in a Libel Bill.

The authors say that the chief remedy in libel should be an apology, not financial reward.

"English libel law is more about making money than saving a reputation," says the report. "The courts should take the financial incentive out of libel law by capping damages at £10,000. If a claimant wishes to demand more then they would need to prove material damage such as loss of earnings."

The report also says that the definition of 'publication' is no longer fit for the internet age. "Each newspaper sold or website hit currently constitutes a new libel - the so-called multiple publication rule – a principle that renders online newspaper archives uniquely vulnerable to libel actions," says the report. That rule – known as the Duke of Brunswick rule – is the subject of a Government consultation that closes on 16th December.

The Ministry of Justice said it would "carefully consider" today's recommendations, according to the BBC.

The recommendations of English PEN and Index on Censorship

These have been reproduced from the report.

1. In libel, the defendant is guilty until proven innocent We recommend: Require the claimant to demonstrate damage and falsity

2. English libel law is more about making money than saving a reputation We recommend: Cap damages at £10,000

3. The definition of ‘publication’ defies common sense We recommend: Abolish the Duke of Brunswick rule and introduce a single publication rule

4. London has become an international libel tribunal We recommend: No case should be heard in this jurisdiction unless at least 10 per cent of copies of the relevant publication have been circulated here

5. There are few viable alternatives to a full trial We recommend: Establish a libel tribunal as a low-cost forum for hearings

6. There is no robust public interest defence in libel law We recommend: Strengthen the public interest defence

7. Comment is not free We recommend: Expand the definition of fair comment

8. The potential cost of defending a libel action is prohibitive We recommend: Cap base costs and make success fees and ‘After the Event’ (ATE) insurance premiums non-recoverable

9. The law does not reflect the arrival of the internet We recommend: Exempt interactive online services and interactive chat from liability

10. Not everything deserves a reputation We recommend: Exempt large and medium-sized corporate bodies and associations from libel law unless they can prove malicious falsehood

Copyright © 2009, OUT-LAW.com

OUT-LAW.COM is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

More from The Register

next story
'Stop dissing Google or quit': OK, I quit, says Code Club co-founder
And now a message from our sponsors: 'STFU or else'
Ex US cybersecurity czar guilty in child sex abuse website case
Health and Human Services IT security chief headed online to share vile images
Don't even THINK about copyright violation, says Indian state
Pre-emptive arrest for pirates in Karnataka
The police are WRONG: Watching YouTube videos is NOT illegal
And our man Corfield is pretty bloody cross about it
Felony charges? Harsh! Alleged Anon hackers plead guilty to misdemeanours
US judge questions harsh sentence sought by prosecutors
Oz biz regulator discovers shared servers in EPIC FACEPALM
'Not aware' that one IP can hold more than one Website
Apple tried to get a ban on Galaxy, judge said: NO, NO, NO
Judge Koh refuses Samsung ban for the third time
prev story

Whitepapers

Top 10 endpoint backup mistakes
Avoid the ten endpoint backup mistakes to ensure that your critical corporate data is protected and end user productivity is improved.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Backing up distributed data
Eliminating the redundant use of bandwidth and storage capacity and application consolidation in the modern data center.
The essential guide to IT transformation
ServiceNow discusses three IT transformations that can help CIOs automate IT services to transform IT and the enterprise
Next gen security for virtualised datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.