The eradication of libel tourism will be a key concern for the next UK parliament, with Justice Secretary Jack Straw today announcing a range of libel reforms.
Straw hopes to put a stop to libel claims made against foreign publications that can be accessed in the UK by asking the Civil Procedure Rule Committee to consider tightening rules where the court’s permission is required to serve defamation cases outside England and Wales.
Other proposals include replacing the existing multiple publication rule, which allows claimants to bring a case against every publication that repeats claims, with a single publication rule. Any action would have to be brought within one year of the date of original publication.
Straw is also proposing introducing a statutory public interest defence to address the affect that the threat of libel proceedings can have on investigative proceedings.
Straw said: “Our current libel laws need to achieve a fair balance between allowing people to protect their reputations from defamatory allegations, and ensuring that freedom of expression and the public’s right to know on matters of public interest are not unnecessarily impeded. At the moment, we believe that the balance is tilted too much in favour of the former.
“The changes announced today, together with other steps already taken by the Government, will redress this imbalance. Replacing the multiple publication rule will ensure that people cannot take court action every time the same article is downloaded, preventing costly and unnecessary legal actions and the uncertainty for publishers of open-ended liability.
“The Government is considering whether a statutory public interest defence would help journalists and other groups who investigate matters of public importance, who are sometimes prevented from making their findings known because of the threat of legal action.”
Readers' comments (4)
Peter Taylor | 24-Mar-2010 11:21 am
About time we had a public interest defence - the rest of the civilised world is ahead of us here which is why we are one of the most self censored societies in the OECD. We do salacious well but everyone is frightened of true investigative journalism - too much risk of libel to chase big business, government or police. And having to prove truth for fair comment and no latitude in qualified privilege means the stories that should get air time never do.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Scep Tick | 24-Mar-2010 3:45 pm
But remember countries that have public interest also have more stringent privacy rules, it's swings and roundabouts. Good to see the multiple publication rule reformed - I am convinced the 1840 case is wrong and was only decided in favour of the claimant because he was a Duke.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
michael brown | 25-Mar-2010 7:22 pm
(1) We have a public interest defence. See Jameel in the House of Lords. Straw just wants to codify it. (2) Multiple publication rule has been considered in Strasbourg and found Convention compliant. Not sure, but don't think they are influenced by Dukes.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Cleverland Brown | 14-Apr-2010 2:50 pm
I very much welcome a public interest defence. We do not yet have a public interest defence as such, the Jameel case established the defence of fair comment in a matter of public interest. Although similar, I believe that the statutory public interest defence as is being considered would be an easier defence to plead.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment