Liberal Democrat Peer Lord Lester writes in today’s Sun about amendments which could derail the long awaited reform of England’s libel laws. He says that Labour’s Lord Puttnam is leading attempts to introduce a “draconian version” of the Leveson proposals. He warns that if these amendments are passed, the whole attempt at libel reform could fall when the Bill reaches the Commons.
First, he set out what the Bill is trying to do:
The Bill creates a Serious Harm Test to prevent frivolous claims. It makes user-friendly the defences of honest opinion, truth and qualified privilege, and introduces an important public interest defence. It creates rules for the internet and abolishes the presumption of a trial by jury in libel cases.
Judges are working to modernise court procedures so libel claims are decided quickly, with a level playing field for the rich and not-so-rich.
It is a charter not for the Press but for the public, for whom the Press is public watchdog.
Then he describes the problems with the Puttnam amendments:
They try to force politicians and the Press to come to a compromise. The aim is well-intentioned but would violate our human rights and freedoms.
Max Mosley failed to persuade our courts, or the European Court of Human Rights, to adopt a rule making it easy for victims of media intrusion to get a gagging order against publication.
The Puttnam amendments propose to build such a requirement within an arbitration scheme, paid for by the Press and underpinned by threat of punitive damages inflicted on those who refuse to join and obey.
He likens the overall effect as “burning the house to roast the pig.”
You can read the article in full here.
* Caron Lindsay is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lib Dems set to name 7 new peers for House of Lords, says Sunday Times
The Lib Dem narrative dilemma: forget about 2010, start looking forward to 2015
Kingston Lib Dems' council leader Derek Osbourne arrested on suspicion of possessing indecent images of children
Helena Morrissey's report: my first impressions
Congratulations to Sir Andrew, Alison, Flick, Kirsty and Sir Menzies
Opinion: Creating a new Alliance
Michael Moore MP writes…Scotland has a role in overseas aid
A picture postcard from a Liberal Democrat in Gezi Park
The Morrissey Report: We must take chance to be a more effective, respectful team
The Rules of Work - Confessions Of A Workaholic
House of Comments - Episode 63 - Making the Grade
Open Access inaction
Join the campaign for a million new jobs
Harris Academy Project Board
100th, 60th and 50th anniversaries
Laurence Reed to broadcast from Cornwall Council call centre
Random Thoughts for 18th June 2013
Only 55% of Brits believe same sex couples should be allowed to marry
Caracatus
Tim13
Anthony Hawkes
Anne
Nick Thornsby
5 Comments
It’s interesting that Lord Lester’s article appears in the Sun, which is one of the papers that will probably be most affected by being gagged. Which clauses in the bill are being complained about? The thing that strikes me most is something that Lester appears to be okay with – abolition of trial by jury.
This seems odd. I thought the Puttnam amendment has already been passed by the Lords with most Liberal Demcrats abstaining (as recommended by our Whips as the amendmnet was thought helpful). The amendment was passed by about 2 to 1. Five LDs voted for it. The payroll vote voted with the government according to convention but only five others voted against Including Lord Lester). Between 40 and 50 LDs (including me) abstained while present in and around the House.
What Lord Lester is doing writing in the Sun is a matter for him.
Tony Greaves
Richard – this is about the only area of Civil law where juries are still involved. (It might be the only one but I’ve got a very vague memory of something really obscure where you can also have a jury)
@Hywel:
” this is about the only area of Civil law where juries are still involved”
Something to do with man’s (sic!) reputation being as important as his liberty – hence not to be tarnished without the consent of his peers?
In fact juries can be used in civil cases of the following sorts:
- a claim of fraud against the party; or
- a claim in respect of libel, slander, malicious prosecution or false imprisonment
Senior Courts Act 1981 section 69(1).
That is, unless the Justice and Security Bill is passed, when juries will be scrapped for these cases which involve national security sensitive information. In other words false imprisonment (kidnap) cases would not be able to involve a jury if the government did not want them to. Yet another reason to defeat the Bill.