English PEN, a charity that promotes the human rights of writers
and publishers, and Index on Censorship, a body that promotes
freedom of expression, spent a year investigating English libel
laws. Their joint report, Free Speech Is Not For
Sale, was published today.
They say that England's libel law "was designed to serve the
rich and powerful and does not reflect the interests of a modern
democratic society." They have proposed 10 changes to current laws
that they want the Government to introduce in a Libel Bill.
The authors say that the chief remedy in libel should be an
apology, not financial reward.
"English libel law is more about making money than saving a
reputation," says the report. "The courts should take the financial
incentive out of libel law by capping damages at £10,000. If a
claimant wishes to demand more then they would need to prove
material damage such as loss of earnings."
The report also says that the definition of 'publication' is no
longer fit for the internet age. "Each newspaper sold or website
hit currently constitutes a new libel - the so-called multiple
publication rule – a principle that renders online newspaper
archives uniquely vulnerable to libel actions," says the report.
That rule – known as the Duke of Brunswick rule – is the subject of
a Government consultation that closes on 16th December.
The Ministry of Justice said it would "carefully consider"
today's recommendations, according to the BBC.
The recommendations of English PEN and Index on Censorship
These have been reproduced from the report.
- In libel, the defendant is guilty until proven innocent
We recommend: Require the claimant to demonstrate damage
and falsity
- English libel law is more about making money than saving a
reputation
We recommend: Cap damages at £10,000
- The definition of ‘publication’ defies common sense
We recommend: Abolish the Duke of Brunswick rule and
introduce a single publication rule
- 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
- There are few viable alternatives to a full trial
We recommend: Establish a libel tribunal as a low-cost
forum for hearings
- There is no robust public interest defence in libel law
We recommend: Strengthen the public interest defence
- Comment is not free
We recommend: Expand the definition of fair comment
- 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
- The law does not reflect the arrival of the internet
We recommend: Exempt interactive online services and
interactive chat from liability
- 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
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
