Lord Lester’s Defamation Bill – an overview

http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/lord-lesters-defamation-bill-...
« Inforrm's Blog

The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog

Home
Inforrm News and Events
About Inforrm

27 05 2010

Lord Lester’s much heralded Defamation Bill (see our earlier post) has been
published today. This is Private Members’ Bill, introduced by the Lib Dem peer in an attempt to assist the
Government in its libel reform proposals. There is a Press Release which tells that the Bill

“seeks to reduce the chilling effect on freedom of expression and recourse to self-censorship
that results from the vagueness and uncertainty of the present law. It also aims to encourage
the free exchange of ideas and information, whilst providing an effective and proportionate
remedy to anyone whose reputation is unfairly damaged”.

In this post we will provide a brief “instant” commentary on the main provisions of the Bill. We may
have missed some subtleties and difficulties on first reading for which we apologise in advance. The Bill
contains 22 clauses and two Schedules, with five principal Parts: Defences, Statutory privilege,
Publication, Cause of Action and Trial by Jury. At first reading many of these provisions seems to be, in
the words of the Bill’s supporters “moderate”. They involve sensible “tidying up” and codification of the
present law. There are however some clauses which are apparently more radical – and more problematic.

Part 1 deals with Defences. For what we are assume are presentational reasons clause 1 deals not with
“truth” – which might be thought to come first – but with the defence of “responsible publication on
matters of public interest”. Contrary to Lord Steyn’s suggestion in his lecture yesterday, this places the
burden of proof on the defendant to show two things:

(a) that the words were published “for the purposes of or otherwise in connection with, the
discussion of a matter of public interest”; and

(b) that the defendant acted responsibly in making the publication.

Clause 1(3) says that responsibility should be assessed “having regard to all the circumstances” and clause
1(4) sets out a series of “factors” to be considered. Clause 1(5) provides a “reportage defence”. This is,
in short, a statutory recasting of the Reynolds defence and one which appears to make no substantive
difference to the pre-existing law. This means that the virtues (such as they are) and vices (which are

1 of 9 27/05/2010 20:59
Lord Lester’s Defamation Bill – an overview
http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/lord-lesters-defamation-bill-...
« Inforrm's Blog

well known) of the Reynolds defence remain intact – it remains complex and costly, focusing on the
quality of journalism rather than on truth. In short, it remains unsatisfactory for both claimants and
defendants.

Clause 2 is cosmetic – renaming the defence of “fair comment” as “honest opinion”. Clause 3 sets out to
define the circumstances in which this defence applies. This appears, at first reading, to be a very good
attempt to reflect (with minor changes) the common law position. Once again, it will make little
difference – although it will, of course, make litigation more complex in the first instance as the Courts
work out the precise parameters of the new definition.

Clauses 4 and 5 undertake the same exercise for the defence of “justification”, renamed “truth” (curiously
falling into the libel lawyers’ loose talk of treating justification as being about proving the truth of
“meanings” rather than being about proving the truth “allegations”). The burden of proof remains on the
defendant. The same points can be made in relation to these clauses as apply to clauses 2 and 3.

Part 2 is headed “Statutory Privilege”. It does not offer a comprehensive code. Clause 6, dealing with
absolute privilege, reproduces the provisions of section 14 of the Defamation Act 1996 – adding certain
other bodies the reports of which are subject to absolute privilege. Clause 7 provides for absolute
privilege for reports of Parliamentary proceedings – replacing the much criticised Parliamentary Papers
Act 1840.

Clause 8 mirrors section 15 of the Defamation Act 1996, setting out various categories of reports and
statements subject to qualified privilege in a Schedule. This substantially follows the 1996 Act – although
with some clarification and some new categories of qualified privilege

Part 3 deals with “Publication”. Clause 9 deals with responsibility for publication and provides a new
“take down defence”. If someone is a “facilitator” (that is, a person concerned only with transmission or
storage but with no control over content) then he has a defence unless the claimant shows that he has
given notice of the defamatory publication and the defendant has not complied with it. This is an
interesting proposal which is worthy of serious consideration.

Clause 10 deals with “multiple publications” – and provides that the cause of action accrues on the “first
occasion on which the publication is made available to the public”. This reverses the common law rule
that each new publication gives rise to a new cause of action. Once again, this is seems to us to be a
proposal which merits serious consideration.

Part 4 is headed “Cause of Action” and gives rise to far more problems. Clause 11 provides that a body
corporate must show that the publication “has caused or is likely to cause, substantial financial loss”. It
is noteworthy that, in contrast to the position in other jurisdictions, no exception is made for small
corporations or non-trading corporations. The reputation of such bodies is treated as being a financial
matter and nothing more: charitable corporations or NGOs with no “business” can, apparently, be
defamed without redress. This appears problematic. The reference to a publication being “likely to
cause” financial loss will, inevitably, lead to argument and litigation – increasing costs and complexity. It
seems to us that, without qualification, this proposal is not a sensible one.

Clause 12 seems to us to be the place where the Bill starts to go off the rails. It provides that

“The court must strike out an action for defamation unless the claimant shows that

(a) the publication … has caused substantial harm to the claimant’s reputation; or

(b) it is likely that such harm will be caused …” (emphasis added)

In other words there is a mandatory strike out unless “substantial harm” can be demonstrated. This
means that every libel action will have an additional – costly – stage where there is an argument about
whether “substantial harm” has been caused. It is possible that this clause makes no difference to the

2 of 9 27/05/2010 20:59
Lord Lester’s Defamation Bill – an overview
http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/lord-lesters-defamation-bill-...
« Inforrm's Blog

existing law of “abuse” but it is going to take a lot of litigation to find out. Many questions arise. What is
“substantial”? What evidence can be received on the issue? Will every libel claimant have to marshall a
body of evidence to show “substantial harm”? Will every libel case begin with a mini-trial on the
“substantial harm” issue? Is “substantial harm” different from the “real and substantial tort tort” test set
out by the House of Lords in Jameel v Dow Jones ([2005] QB 946) – which has been applied in a number
of recent cases (see our post here)? It seems to us likely that this provision will have the very opposite
effect of that which is intended: litigation will become more costly and more complicated. This is a
positively bad idea.

Clause 13 is intended to deal with “libel tourism”. If the same (or similar) words have been also been
published outside the jurisdiction then

“(2) No harmful event is to be regarded as having occurred .. unless the publication in the
jurisdiction can reasonably be regarded as having caused substantial harm to the claimant’s
reputation having regard to the extent of publication elsewhere”.

This provision comes at the bottom of page 6 of the Bill. We turned the page looking for another
sub-clause for some clarification but there is none to be found. What does all this mean? Let’s put aside
an obvious problem. This provision, in practice, will apply to every libel action – English newspapers are
published outside the jurisdiction, internet publication is worldwide. But what do the words quoted
above from clause 13(2) actually mean? It might be thought that damage is always caused to a claimant’s
reputation in the jurisdiction by publication in the jurisdiction – but the provision is obviously meant to do
something more. It is not clear what. This provision is also a recipe for confusion and litigation. It is a
point which can (and will) be taken in every case.

The provision also appears to be in conflict with EU law. As Eady J said in his Justice Conference lecture
in December last year, in relation to the debate on libel tourism ;

“We are bound by the decision of the European Court of Justice in Shevill v Presse Alliance
[1995] 2 AC 218, which had been referred by the House of Lords three years earlier, to the
effect that any citizen of the European Union can sue for libel in any jurisdiction (including
multiple jurisdictions) where his or her reputation has been damaged. Any reform would need
to be compatible with that principle.”

Part 5, deals with trial by jury. The proposals are contained in clauses 14 and 15. The idea is to remove
the presumption of trial by jury in libel cases. There are serious arguments to be had on both sides of this
point. However, libel jury trials are, these days, extremely rare – with only a handful every year – so the
practical relevance of this provision is limited.

Overall: Our overall verdict on first reading is that the Bill contains some solid work and interesting
proposals. But it is not radical or wide ranging and does not “rebalance” or “recast” the law of libel. If
anything it will add a further layers of complexity and increase costs. It is not a substitute for a
thoroughgoing review of the existing law.

« Lord Steyn’s Boydell Lecture – Defamation and Privacy

Actions

Comments RSS
Trackback

Information

3 of 9 27/05/2010 20:59
Lord Lester’s Defamation Bill – an overview
http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/lord-lesters-defamation-bill-...
« Inforrm's Blog

Date : May 27, 2010

Categories : Government and Policy, Legal

Leave a comment

Name (required)

E-mail (required)

Website

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Notify me of site updates

RSS - Posts

inforrmeditorial@googlemail.com

Lord Lester's Defamation Bill - an overview

"Libel must be rebalanced in the scales of justice" - the proposed Libel Reform Bill [updated]
Privacy, the Duchess of York and the Public Interest
Lord Steyn's Boydell Lecture - Defamation and Privacy

4 of 9 27/05/2010 20:59
Lord Lester’s Defamation Bill – an overview
http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/lord-lesters-defamation-bill-...
« Inforrm's Blog

Opinion: "Mail On Sunday and the World Cup Bid" Mark Thomson
Blogging the Media: an Introductory Guide
Privacy and Chocolate Fish
Law and Media Roundup 23 May 2010
Opinion: "Front Page Fiction, Dee v Telegraph", Jonathan Coad
Judgment: Hays plc v Hartley

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

15 June 2010 Westminster Legal Policy Forum Keynote Seminar: "Libel & privacy law - challenges for
reform"

1 July 2010 "I'm a Celebrity, Get me some privacy"

30 March 2010 Miller v Associated Newspapers

31 March 2010 A v Independent News and Media

31 March 2010 Baturina v Times Newspapers

1 April 2010 British Chiropractic Association v Singh

22 April 2010 TUV v Persons Unknown

26 April 2010 Bowman v MGN

28 April 2010 Dee v Telegraph Media Group

13 May 2010 Kaschke v Osler

17 May 2010 Hays plc v Hartley

26 May 2010 Brady v Norman

Lord Lester’s Defamation Bill – an overview

Lord Steyn’s Boydell Lecture – Defamation and Privacy
“Libel must be rebalanced in the scales of justice” – the proposed Libel Reform Bill [updated]
Privacy, the Duchess of York and the Public Interest
Blogging the Media: an Introductory Guide
Law and Media Roundup 23 May 2010
Privacy and Chocolate Fish

5 of 9 27/05/2010 20:59
Lord Lester’s Defamation Bill – an overview
http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/lord-lesters-defamation-bill-...
« Inforrm's Blog

Opinion: “Front Page Fiction, Dee v Telegraph”, Jonathan Coad

Opinion: “Mail On Sunday and the World Cup Bid” Mark Thomson
Judgment: Hays plc v Hartley
A Human Right to Internet Access?
Law and Media Roundup, 15 May 2010
Case Law: Political Blog Libel Action Struck Out As Abuse
Revisited: “Harassment and the Media”: Part 2 Media Claims in Practice
Celebrity, reporting court hearings and a musical prodigy

ACLU – Blog of Rights (US)

Angry Mob – We read the papers everyday
Backlash – freedom of sexual expression
Blog Law Blog (US)
British Journalism Review
California Defamation Law Blog (US)
Canadian Privacy Law Blog
Cearta i.e. – Irish for rights
Citizen Media Law Project (US)
Concurring Opinions (US)
Cyber Law Australia
Datonomy
Defamation Law Blog (Canada)
Droit et Technologies d'Information (France)
ECHR Blog
Enemies of Reason – "Poundshop Pot Shots at the Media Moral Maze"
Entertainment & Media Law Signal (Canada)
European Media Blog
First Amendment Coalition (US)
First Amendment Law Prof Blog
Free Speech Law @blogspot
Freedom of Expression Institute (South Africa)
Greenslade Blog (Guardian)
Hold the Front Page
Human Rights in Ireland
IP Kat
Jack of Kent – a liberal and skeptical blog
Journalism.co.uk
Legal Research Plus
Lex Ferenda
Media Beak
Media Law – a blog about freedom of the press (US)
Media Law Journal (NZ)
Media Law Prof Blog (US)
Media Pal@LSE
Media Policy Blog

6 of 9 27/05/2010 20:59
Lord Lester’s Defamation Bill – an overview
http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/lord-lesters-defamation-bill-...
« Inforrm's Blog

Newsroom Law Blog (US)

Online Journalism Blog
Panopticon Blog
Photo Archive News
POLIS – Director's Blog (Charlie Beckett)
Privacy and Information Security Law Blog (US)
Privacy Lives (US)
Privacy News – Pogo was right (US)
Privacylaw.org
Proof – the Media Society's Blog
Reputation Defender (US)
Shear on Social Media Law (US)
Student Press Law Center (US)
Tabloid Watch
Tech and Law
Technology and Marketing Law Blog (US)
The Court (Canadian SC)
The Daily Judge (US)
The Hollywood Reporter (US)
The Sun – Tabloid Lies
The Unruly of Law (US)
Two Cultures – a geeky blog about science, literature and law
UK Freedom of Information Blog
UK Human Rights Blog
UK Supreme Court Blog

Australian High Court

Canadian Supreme Court
Commonwealth Legal Information Institute
Cour De Cassation France
German Federal Constitutional Court
Irish Supreme Court
New Zealand Supreme Court
Ofcom
Office of the Information Commissioner
Press Complaints Commission
Press Council (Australia)
Press Council (South Africa)
South African Constitutional Court
UK Judiciary
UK Supreme Court
US Supreme Court

Angry Mob – We read the papers everyday

Centre for Internet and Society – Stanford (US)
Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism
Committee to Protect Journalists
Council of Europe – Media and Information Society
Council of Europe: Media Freedom

7 of 9 27/05/2010 20:59
Lord Lester’s Defamation Bill – an overview
http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/lord-lesters-defamation-bill-...
« Inforrm's Blog

Electronic Privacy Information Centre

Ethical Journalism Initiative
EthicNet – collection of codes of journalism ethics in Europe
European Journalism Centre
European Journalism Observatory
Frontline Club
Guardian on Privacy and the Media
Handbook of Reuters Journalism
House of Commons Select Committee for Culture Media and Sport memoranda on press standards,
privacy and libel
International Federation Of Journalists
Libertus (Australia)
Media Gazer (US)
Media Standards Trust
Media Wise Trust
Nieman Journalism Lab
Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism
Society of Editors
Spy Report – Media News (Australia)

5RB Media Case Reports

Ad IDEM – Canadian Media Lawyers Association
Chilling Effects Weather Reports (US)
Courthousenews (US)
Defamation Lawyer – Dozier Internet Law
Entertainment and Law (US)
Entertainment and Sports Law Journal (ESLJ)
First Amendment Center
Gazette of Law and Journalism (Australia)
International Media Lawyers Association
Justia Media and Communications Blawgs
Legalis.Net – Jurisprudence actualite, droit internet
Office of Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression – Inter American Commission on Human
Rights
Out-law.com
Press Gazette Media Law

May 2010 (31)

April 2010 (40)
March 2010 (48)
February 2010 (35)
January 2010 (1)

Caselaw

8 of 9 27/05/2010 20:59
Lord Lester’s Defamation Bill – an overview
http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/lord-lesters-defamation-bill-...
« Inforrm's Blog

EU
Freedom of expression
Government and Policy
Human Rights
Journalism
Legal
Media
Privacy
Uncategorized

Register
Log in
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
WordPress.com

Blog at WordPress.com • Freshy theme by Jide.

9 of 9 27/05/2010 20:59