Libel Law Shake-up to Reduce ‘Libel Tourism’

Libel laws are used to stifle academic and scientific debate, even silence journalists outside of the UK, some claim. Justice Secretary Clarke’s draft bill aims to re-establish ’the right to speak freely and debate issues’ in England and Wales.
Libel Law Shake-up to Reduce ‘Libel Tourism’
Judges arrive for their annual Service Of Thanksgiving at Westminster Abbey on October 1, 2009. The ceremony has roots in the Middle Ages when the High Court was held in Westminster Hall and judges prayed for guidance at the start of the legal year. (Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)
3/15/2011
Updated:
10/1/2015

<a><img src="https://www.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2015/09/91301856.jpg" alt="Judges arrive for their annual Service Of Thanksgiving at Westminster Abbey on October 1, 2009. The ceremony has roots in the Middle Ages when the High Court was held in Westminster Hall and judges prayed for guidance at the start of the legal year. (Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)" title="Judges arrive for their annual Service Of Thanksgiving at Westminster Abbey on October 1, 2009. The ceremony has roots in the Middle Ages when the High Court was held in Westminster Hall and judges prayed for guidance at the start of the legal year. (Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)" width="320" class="size-medium wp-image-1806711"/></a>
Judges arrive for their annual Service Of Thanksgiving at Westminster Abbey on October 1, 2009. The ceremony has roots in the Middle Ages when the High Court was held in Westminster Hall and judges prayed for guidance at the start of the legal year. (Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)
The government announced a major revamp of libel law on Tuesday, aimed at ending “libel tourism” and protecting free speech.

The draft bill seeks to address claims that outdated and strict libel laws are being increasingly used to stifle academic and scientific debate, and even to silence journalists outside of the UK. The changes will apply to England and Wales.

Announcing the draft bill, Justice Secretary Ken Clarke said: “The right to speak freely and debate issues without fear of censure is a vital cornerstone of a democratic society.

“In recent years, though, the increased threat of costly libel actions has begun to have a chilling effect on scientific and academic debate and investigative journalism.”

He said that the new legislation, which contains a new public interest defence, would “ensure that anyone who makes a statement of fact or expresses an honest opinion can do so with confidence”.

The change in law would require that those claiming libel can only sue if they can demonstrate that substantial harm has been caused. Previously, the requirement was only that the reputation of the claimant had been damaged in the eyes of a right-minded person.

The government says that the new bill will prevent libel tourism by requiring claimants prove that England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate place to bring an action against someone who is not domiciled in the UK or an EU Member State.

A statutory defence of truth would replace the current common law defence of justification, and a defence of honest opinion would replace the current common law defence of fair/honest comment.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said current libel laws were outdated. “We cannot continue to tolerate a culture in which scientists, journalists and bloggers are afraid to tackle issues of public importance for fear of being sued,” he said in a statement from the Ministry of Justice.

The bill will also shift libel cases from juries to judges, apart from in exceptional circumstances.
The draft bill was broadly welcomed by those who have been campaigning for reform to libel law, but they still wished the government to take even bolder steps.

John Kampfner, chief executive of Index on Censorship said, “I know that certain publications will not write about billionaire businessmen because the costs of a single libel action could ruin them,” according to a statement on the organisation’s website.

“The government’s draft defamation bill is a big step forward towards ending the practice of libel tourism which has led our Courts to silence free speech around the world. But without action to reduce the cost of a libel trial, reform will protect the free speech of some, but costs will silence others.”

According to media watchdog Index on Censorship, the average cost of defending a libel case in England is 140 times that in the rest of Europe.

Index on Censorship is one of the organisations behind the Libel Reform Campaign, which have both been instrumental in pushing for change. The Libel Reform Campaign is calling on the the government to go further with reforms, to include a stronger public interest defence, to end the ability of corporations to sue in libel, and to provide more protection for web-hosts and internet service providers from liability for the words of others.

{xtypo_quote_center}a State party’s unduly restrictive libel law will affect freedom of expression worldwide on matters of valid public interest

UN Human Rights Committee on one of the dangers of the internet, July 21st, 2008{/xtypo_quote_center}

Over the last decade, growing numbers of foreign claimants have brought libel actions in the English courts, often against those who are neither British citizens nor residents.

In a landmark libel case which was to see a change in US legislation, a Saudi businessman sued American academic Rachel Ehrenfeld in an English court, for comments in her book Funding Evil, despite only 23 copies ever being sold to the UK.

The defendant refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the English court, which then gave a summary ruling that the allegations in her book were unsubstantiated, and awarded £10,000 in damages to the claimant.

Mrs Ehrenfeld sought legal protection in the United States. When the New York Court of Appeal said that it could not rule on such a case, there was outrage, prompting various states to pass legislation to protect against such rulings in a bill nicknamed “Rachel’s Law”. The House of Representatives passed a bill this year to protect all US citizens.

A UN Human Rights Committee report published on July 21st, 2008, said that the internet creates the danger “that a State party’s unduly restrictive libel law will affect freedom of expression worldwide on matters of valid public interest”.

The UN report was highly critical of English libel law, saying it had “served to discourage critical media reporting on matters of serious public interest, adversely affecting the ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work”.

In an English court, a Ukrainian businessman sued a Ukraine-based internet news site in relation to a series of four articles about his youth. The website publishes in Ukrainian, with only a few dozen readers in Britain. Default judgement in the claimant’s favour was obtained, along with damages of £50,000 and costs, in June 2008.