Time has come to replace “patched-up archaic law”

Free speech advocates have been given a boost by the publication of Lord Lester’s Private Member’s Defamation Bill.

The Bill, which had its first reading last week, seeks to answer concerns that the current law on libel is costly, vague and uncertain, and is stifling debate by encouraging self-censorship.

It would introduce a statutory defence of responsible publication on a matter of public interest, protect those reporting on proceedings in Parliament and other issues of public concern, and require claimants to show substantial harm and corporate bodies to show financial loss.

The Bill seeks to encourage speedy settlement of disputes, and would address internet publication issues by scrapping the multiple publication rule.

It would also clarify the defences of justification and fair comment, which would be renamed as “truth” and “honest opinion”. This follows the comments of Lord Judge in British Chiropractic Association v Singh [2010] EWCA Civ 350, that “fair comment” might be more accurately described as “honest opinion”.

Robert Dougans, solicitor-advocate, Bryan Cave LLP, who represented Singh, says the use of “truth” and “honest opinion” would make it “harder to fall down the between the gaps”. The Bill “simplifies the whole thing,” he says.

“One of the main problems with defamation law is that it is more patchy than trousers, with case law and pieces from Europe and Parliament. It has been quite difficult to give definite advice to people, so putting it all in one place is a good thing.”

The coalition government has pledged to introduce libel reform and could use Lord Lester’s Bill as a model for reform.

Lord Lester has previous form in this regard—he introduced two Private Members’ Bills to make the European Convention on Human Rights directly enforceable in British courts, which became models for the Human Rights Act 1998.

Lord Lester said: “The time is over-ripe for Parliament to replace our patched-up archaic law with one that gives stronger protection to freedom of speech.

“No government or Parliament has conducted a thorough and comprehensive review. My Bill provides the opportunity to do so and to modernise the law in step with the technological revolution.

For the full story see: www.newlawjournal.co.uk