- Written by Robert Sharp
- February 20, 2013
- Category: England & Wales
At a debate on the Defamation Bill in the House of Lords on 5th February a group of Peers led by Lord Puttnam inserted an amendment into the Bill that contained some proposals on press regulation from Lord Justice Leveson's report.
Tracey Brown writes in the Guardian on 8th February that the Defamation Bill is a citizen's bill - it came about because of revelations that libel threats had silenced scientists, doctors, biographers, community lawyers, consumer groups and human rights activists. Hundreds of these people and groups fed into the development of the Defamation Bill. "It's been a marathon getting this vital libel reform bill through the Lords. Let's not shackle it to a contentious press regulation plan" Read the article here.
Lord Lester's letter setting out the purpose of the Defamation Bill and explaining why Leveson amendments don't belong there was published in the Times on Tuesday 19th February:
"Sir, Lord Skidelsky’s reasons (letter, Feb 18) for supporting the Puttnam amendments to the Defamation Bill are misconceived, for the following reasons. First, the Bill is designed to make much-needed reforms to outmoded English libel law not to tackle media intrusion on private life. The Leveson report is about privacy, not libel, and it is beyond the Bill’s scope to include privacy.
Second, the exorbitant cost of bringing or defending libel claims is being dealt with by changes in civil procedure and costs rules under the supervision of the Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson. Third, the Bill rightly does not “prevent the publication of things which may be true, but whose publication has no sufficient reason”. Max Mosley failed to persuade our courts or the European Court of Human Rights to adopt such a rule, involving a prior restraint on publication, because of its adverse impact on the freedom of expression of the press and the public.
Fourth, Skidelsky supports the proposal that “If the regulator gave a green light [to publication], the newspaper would be protected. But if the newspaper published without seeking advice or ran the story against advice from the regulator, it would be at risk of exemplary damages.” The only European states with such a rule are former states of the Soviet Union. The proposal clearly violates the right to free speech protected by common law and article 10 of the Convention.
Fifth, the arbitral system he supports is inquisitorial and not adversarial. It is not a voluntary scheme because of the threat of exemplary damages for failure to use a recognised arbitration service. The extension of exemplary damages recommended by Leveson was twice rejected by the previous Labour Government and by Mr Justice Eady in the Mosley case. It was rejected for good reason.
Sixth, the proposed scheme does not satisfy the requirements of judicial process required by article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and is one-sided.
The Labour Party has so far given firm support to this much-needed Coalition Bill that has now been taken hostage and is in limbo. I hope that, with Labour support, the Bill will be set free when it returns to the Commons.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill, QC
The story continues in the press:
Daily Mail editorial: Defending freedom
Times: Defamation Bill
Daily Mirror: MPs vow to stop Lords bid to curb free press
Daily Mirror editorial: Lords of tyranny
The Sun 5 days to save free speech
Daily Telegraph: Lords' curb shackles press, says MP
Daily Telegraph editorial: Putting self interest ahead of press freedom
The Times: Pay attention - your liberty is under attack
Today programme, BBC Radio 4Legal advice casts doubt on Leveson proposal (at 2hrs 45)
The Sunday Telegraph: Read between the lines: this is press censorship
The Observer: What price freedom with Labour's stance on libel?
The Times letters: Freedom of the press and gagging orders
The Independent: Harman piles pressure on PM to toughen press regulation plan
The Guardian: Libel reform is at risk, all because of a fit of pique
The Daily Mail: Tory threat to rival parties over libel law
David Allen Green blog: A Leveson supporter calls on Lord Puttnam to drop the “Libel Reform” amendments
The Daily Telegraph: Peers criticised after vote on Defamation Bill
The Independent: Libel law reform Bill thrown into doubt
The Daily Mail: Peers dilute Press plan which 'threatens free speech'
The Guardian: Put burden of proof on claimants