Home > Martin Bright

Sunday 27 May 2012

The Guardian and Libel

Thursday, 26th March 2009

There is a very important piece in today's Guardian about the UK libel laws by my old friend Jo Glanville, editor of Index on Censoship. I urge you to read the article in full.

She argues that the UK's "libel laws remain the most significant daily chill on free speech in the UK". She is right. There are a number of stories that the British press won't touch because the threat of being sued by welathy individuals would be so great. I can think of one such story that I would love to tell you about, but if I gave even the merest hint of the identity of the individual involved I would risk a very hefty libel suit.

The meat of Jo's argument is this passage:

"The key issue is costs. The use of "no win no fee" (conditional fee agreements, or CFAs) has turned libel courts into casinos. CFAs were introduced in 1995 to ensure broader access to justice. But under this system lawyers can charge a 100% uplift on their fees, creating an absurd situation where legal costs can be 100 times the damages awarded.

A recent study by the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies at Oxford University revealed the astonishing fact that the cost of libel litigation in England and Wales is 140 times the average elsewhere in Europe. The introduction of CFAs has clearly had the unforeseen effect of limiting the exercise of freedom of expression in the public interest - and decreasing access to justice for groups that would be ruined by legal action."

The point is that very few newspapers ever fight libel actions. Local newspapers almost never do. Journalists are not made aware that publications routinely pull down articles from their websites at the merest whiff of a lawyers' letter from the likes of Carter-Ruck. In these circumstances, it is a wonder an investigation ever gets off the ground.

I am delighted that the Guardian has published Jo's important piece. I see the paper is planning a series on UK libel law and campaigning for its reform. This is the same newspaper group that pulled down a series of articles by me and other journalists on a matter of serious public interest after a threat from a rich man's lawyers. I pointed this out to a woman from the Guardian who approached me to write for the series. I suggested that perhaps this was the moment for the world to be told the full details of the story they had helped censor. The answer was: "Forget it." I would print the full exchange, but again I would risk being sued.

The point is this. It is all very well blaming the libel laws. And I do believe they need reforming. But newspapers also have a duty to take on seriously rich individuals in the courts otherwise investigative journalism will wither and die.

Filed under: Libel (10 more articles) , The Guardian (12 more articles)

Previous Back to Martin Bright Next

Blogs: Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (12)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Rhoda Klapp

March 26th, 2009 8:24am Report this comment

Are you supporting a swift resolution where the issues of true/not true can be quickly worked out with a minimum of fuss and expense, and no lawyer gets rich, and no defendant is broken even if he wins?

If so, I entirely support you.

Kevyn Bodman

March 26th, 2009 9:27am Report this comment

Now spend some time working out how you propose to protect people from untruthful allegations that damage their reputations.

If an allegation is true,print it.Dropping hints is useless.And probably diminishes journalists in the eyes of readers.
If an allegation is not true it shouldn't be made, and if damage results then compensation is merited.

Greedy lawyers and wimpish journalists are both to blame.

Martin Bright

March 26th, 2009 10:13am Report this comment

Rhoda. I think, for once, we are in complete agreement.

Ronnie

March 26th, 2009 11:47am Report this comment

You see Martin! There is something you almost wrote that Rhoda likes.

Me too.

Rhoda Klapp

March 26th, 2009 12:06pm Report this comment

Martin, I shall be taking the Rhobot software for a serious Validation and Verification, there seems to be a bug in it.

ndm

March 26th, 2009 3:53pm Report this comment

-- Now spend some time working out how you propose to protect people from untruthful allegations that damage their reputations.

Somehow this does not appear to be a big issue in the US which makes me think it should not really be a big issue in the UK. It is more about protecting legal habit than the reputation of the rich and famous.

mac

March 26th, 2009 6:24pm Report this comment

Not a paper I care to read (much), but bully for this initiative, and your position too.

porkbelly

March 26th, 2009 7:51pm Report this comment

I wonder whether the very existence of such draconian libel laws has the effect of encouraging rather then discouraging the more outrageous tendencies of the UK gutter press by forcing them to hound their targets for something tangible (an incriminating photo, an ill-considered quote) to hang a story on.

James Forsyth

March 26th, 2009 8:53pm Report this comment

Martin is right that our libel laws have a chilling effect on free speech. Porkbelly is onto something, but I'd put it rather differently. Libel is so dominant in this country, that it is easy for journalsists to worry more about whether something is libellous than whether it is fair or accurate.

Leo McKinstry

March 26th, 2009 11:39pm Report this comment

Martin, you're absolutely right about Britain's outrageous libel laws. My faith in libel lawyers was completely shattered a decade ago, when a book of mine went through the legal vetting process for potential libellous comments. In one chapter, I had mentioned in passing the notorious case of Reginal Christie, the serial killer who lived at 10 Rillington Place. The lawyer asked, "Who is Mr Christie and is he likely to sue?" I had the pleasure of telling him that Christie was executed in 1953.

libsoc

March 30th, 2009 2:34pm Report this comment

Mind you, sometimes you need the libel laws to pervent this sort of smear

From the Policy Exchange Website

The Hijacking of British Islam:

Al-Manaar Muslim Cultural Heritage Centre

In this report we state that Al-Manaar Muslim Cultural Heritage Centre is one of the Centres where extremist literature was found. Policy Exchange accepts the Centre’s assurances that none of the literature cited in the Report has ever been sold or distributed at the Centre with the knowledge or consent of the Centre’s trustees or staff, who condemn the extremist and intolerant views set out in such literature. We are happy to set the record straight.

Melmoth

April 1st, 2010 12:03am Report this comment

Hmm...I don't think wealthy individuals need CFA's to sue papers. The people that need them are the people who could not usually afford this type of litigation. That doesn't mean that their lives can't be ruined by someone defaming them. Are they (we!) not to have a remedy as well as the rich?

Post comment