The Wardman Wire

There have been several good reports in the last day or two about UK Defamation Law. Let me highlight two which are particularly well argued, and a good summary.

The small, scary world of English libel, from Heresy Corner

The Heresiarch has a look at how the implementation and jurispridence around Libel is carried out in England by a small nexus of Advocates and Judges, and draws on what – in evolutonary terms – I would call a “small gene pool“, which (stretching my analogy) reduces the quality of the legal stock:

Less well known is the fact that two sets of barristers’ chambers – 5 Raymond Buildings and 1 Brick Court – between them account for the vast majority of libel work. And they also supply the judges. Rather as old footballers become coaches, successful libel lawyers find themselves elevated to the bench, where they have free rein to maintain and enforce the very laws that made them rich, and which are still enriching their old friends and colleagues who stand before them. There are four of them at present, two from each set. It’s all very cosy.

The Heresiarch also explores how legal firms such as Carter-F*cked (my suggestion for their new nickname following on from the Trafigura road-accident) and others are able to use legal procedure in international cases to stack up fees progressively.

Disgust with our Libel Laws abroad is now such that, not only have several US States passed laws to prevent enforcement of English Court decisions within their jurisdiction, but that several newspapers are considering whether to cease sending copies to the UK and barring UK Internet users from their websites to protect themselves from the malignant cancer which is English Defamation Law.

Many of the arguments made by the international press are quite familiar. They point out, for example, the unfair burden that the law places on defendants – even if they win their case, which is often unlikely given the rules, they will not recover their costs in full. They note that the jurisdictional expansionism of English courts threatens to damage transatlantic relationships, as American attachment to free speech under the First Amendment is happily disregarded by British judges. There is criticism of the antiquated Duke of Brunswick rule which allows an action to be brought in England if an alleged libel has been read here once – and which “has long been abandoned in America”.

Our sceptred isle: another great day for British law and justice, from Charon QC

Charon does an excellent review of several different current legal debates, including:

1. Secret Inquests
2. The National Phone Call and EMail Details Surveillance Database
3. Libel Tourism

The laws that stain Britain’s good name, by John Kampfner, of Index on Censorship, in the Times.

Britain is a pariah state, shunned by its allies and exploited by the unsavoury. The state of English libel laws (Scotland’s provisions are a little better) is so embarrassing that a number of US states have enacted legislation to protect their citizens from our courts. London is the global centre of libel tourism. From Middle Eastern potentates to Russian oligarchs, the rich and powerful use our legal system to bully people who try to hold them to account.

Sometimes cases make the courts; more often individuals, authors, newspapers or charities involved are forced to apologise even when they know they have done nothing wrong. This is the big chill. This has gone far beyond the rights of the media. It affects people in all walks of life. Thanks to the UK, abuses around the world are hushed up, for fear of what might happen if a single copy of a publication, even if it originated abroad, is found in Britain.

Finally, Parliament is waking up. The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport is preparing to deliver a long-awaited report on the press standards, privacy and libel. The early signs were that MPs had succumbed to the lazy thinking that the “feral beasts” — to borrow Tony Blair’s description of the press — needed taming. They were struck by the testimony of Gerry McCann, and so they should have been, as the hounding of the McCanns was one of the most indefensible acts of media behaviour of recent years.

But belatedly, politicians appear to understand that it is possible to devise laws that protect innocent people from harassment while encouraging dogged investigation.

Read it all.

Wrapping Up

Now is the time to start asking all political parties to put rational reform of English Defamation Law (Scottish Law is better) into their manifestos as a commitment.