UK Libel Laws

Over the last couple of months I've been reading an increasing amount of articles on UK Libel Laws. I think the reason that I've been paying more attention to these stories is that I'm currently studying Media Law as part of my NCTJ certificate in journalism. So far I've been looking at defamation law which is supposed to be about striking a balance between protecting the reputation of individuals and businesses, whilst at the same time allowing freedom of speech.

The trouble is, the more reports that I've been reading about UK libel laws the more I'm beginning to realise that freedom of speech is actually being severely compromised. Too many companies and individuals are using the libel laws as a form of censorship which is really worrying.
One good thing that does seem to be happening is that more and more people are now saying that the situation is becoming intolerable, and reforms need to be made. The latest report I read on this matter was by a Mark Lewis in the Solicitors Journal. It's an excellent article which you can read here.

In December last year General Electric Healthcare used the London Libel courts to gag a senior radiologist, Henrik Thomsen when he raised concerns of the potential risks over one of its drugs.

A month before that, I read a report in the Sunday Times about the case of Peter Wilmshurst, a consultant cardiologist who was being sued in Britain for comments he made in America which were reported on an American website.

It's not just scientists who are now speaking out, a number of high profile British comedians have also joined a campaign to overhaul the country's libel laws. The comedian Alexi Sayle fought a libel case last year after writing a book in which an individual working in the comedy business sued for defamation, claiming a character in the book resembled him. Sayle argued he faced financial ruin trying to defend himself. He came out with the brilliant line of:

“It would have been cheaper if I’d just stabbed the f*****,”

The biologist and writer Richard Dawkins was quoted saying scientists are operating in an 'atmosphere of fear' because of the libel laws in this country.

What I do find quite worrying is the number of foreign claimants fighting cases in English courts over alleged defamatory statements made in overseas publications, commonly referred to as 'Libel tourism'

It can't be right when American newspapers are seriously considering removing London editions of their publications in the UK because of the fear and financial risk of libel actions being brought against them.

I've recently heard about the The Libel Reform Campaign, which has launched a petition calling for reform of the libel laws. The campaign has brought together a number of different groups such a English Pen who have produced a report recommending changes. Index on Censorship, Sense about Science and various comedians, journalists, politicians and public figures.

Earlier this month the Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg gave a speech on the subject at the Royal Society in which he argued that the 'draconian and unbalanced' libel laws in this country was contributing to the growth of libel tourism.

A review into the libel laws is currently taking place and should be completed by the end of March. The outcome is certainly something I'll be looking forward to hearing about. The review was ordered by the Justice Secretary Jack Straw. I'll be surprised if the report fails to highlight the major imbalances within the current laws.

It seems clear that too many aspects of the current law are weighted in favour of rich claimants who can afford to bring about libel cases, against individuals who simply do not have the financial resources to defend themselves.

Having listened to the debate from those in favour of reform, it seems that the most pressing changes need to begin with a shift in the burden of proof required to win a case. Moving away from the defendant having to prove the truth of their words, to one where the claimant has to show that what has been written is in fact false.

In addition to this, the costs awarded for damages appear totally disproportionate. Some sort of cap on damages needs to be introduced. Finally the other suggestion that I agree with is the creation of an independent tribunal which can arbitrate cases between defendants and complainants.