| Article Index |
|---|
| The Report |
| TERMS OF REFERENCE |
| EXECUTIVE SUMMARY |
| BALANCING FREE SPEECH AND REPUTATION |
| RESTORING THE BALANCE |
| RECOMMENDATIONS |
| APPENDIX: CASE STUDIES |
| ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS |
| All Pages |
RECOMMENDATIONS
Having considered the existing law in light of the need to balance free speech against the protection of reputation, we have developed the following recommendations. These are intended to restore the balance, so that everyone shares in the benefit of an open, tolerant society.
1. In libel, the defendant is guilty until proven innocent
We recommend: Require the claimant to demonstrate damage and falsity
2. English libel law is more about making money than saving a reputation
We recommend: Cap damages at £10,000
3. The definition of ‘publication’ defies common sense
We recommend: Abolish the Duke of Brunswick rule and introduce a single publication rule
4. London has become an international libel tribunal
We recommend: No case should be heard in this jurisdiction unless at least 10 per cent of copies of the relevant publication have been circulated here
5. There are few viable alternatives to a full trial
We recommend: Establish a libel tribunal as a low-cost forum for hearings
6. There is no robust public interest defence in libel law
We recommend: Strengthen the public interest defence
7. Comment is not free
We recommend: Expand the definition of fair comment
8. The potential cost of defending a libel action is prohibitive
We recommend: Cap base costs and make success fees and ‘After the Event’ (ATE)
insurance premiums non-recoverable
9. The law does not reflect the arrival of the internet
We recommend: Exempt interactive online services and interactive chat from liability
10. Not everything deserves a reputation
We recommend: Exempt large and medium-sized corporate bodies and associations from libel law unless they
can prove malicious falsehood
In order to facilitate a thorough democratic debate about this crucial subject, we recommend that these measures should be incorporated in
a Libel Bill, which would simplify the existing law, restore the balance between free speech and the protection of reputation, and reflect the
impact of the internet on the circulation of ideas and information.