More details of Lord Lester’s libel reform bill released

Yesterday I covered the news that Liberal Democrat Lord Lester is going to table a bill to reform libel law. He’s now released details of what approach the bill will take:

  • Introduce a statutory defence of responsible publication on a matter of public interest;
  • Clarify the defences of justification and fair comment, renamed as ‘truth’ and ‘honest opinion’;
  • Respond to the problems of the internet age, including multiple publications and the responsibility of Internet Service Providers and hosters;
  • Protect those reporting on proceedings in Parliament and other issues of public concern;
  • Require claimants to show substantial harm, and corporate bodies to show financial loss;
  • Encourage the speedy settlement of disputes without recourse to costly litigation.

Of the bill Lord Lester has said:

The time is over-ripe for Parliament to replace our patched-up archaic law with one that gives stronger protection to freedom of speech. No Government or Parliament has conducted a thorough and comprehensive review. My Bill provides the opportunity to do so and to modernise the law in step with the technological revolution. It creates a framework of principles rather than a rigid and inflexible code, and it seeks a fair balance between reputation and public information on matters of public interest.

Robert Dougans, Solicitor-Advocate for Simon Singh in his recent case against the British Chiropractic Association has welcomed the bill:

Lord Lester’s Bill should be welcomed by free speech campaigners. The proposals follow on from the Singh decision in expanding and enhancing the defence of honest opinion. This ought to be good news for all those seeking to engage in hard-hitting debate. The most important legacy might simply be putting much of libel law on a statutory basis. Attempts by the courts and Parliament to reform the libel laws have just added layers of complexity, to the extent that only specialist lawyers are able to advise upon it. This naturally increases costs and makes it harder to give definite advice.

Meanwhile Evan Harris has said:

Libel law reform is needed to prevent the chilling of comment which is in the public interest. It is therefore essential for scientists and academics and giving their opinion in good faith and responsibly, and their publishers, to know at the time of publication that they will have an effective defence against an unjustified libel plaintiff. Lord Lester’s skilfully crafted bill is one way of doing that and also offers the Government a vehicle for legislation following their review.

Read more by or more about , , or .
This entry was posted in News.
Advert

3 Comments

  • Antony Hook 27th May '10 - 9:39am

    I would feel better about this if the Press Complaints Commission was at the same time made more effective.

  • Stuart Mitchell 27th May '10 - 10:20am

    After the flurry of spin, fudge and hypocrisy that was the Queen’s Speech… thank goodness for Lord Lester, who is singlehandedly trying to restore the Lib Dem’s reputation by bringing forward this excellent bill.

    Since all three main parties committed themselves to libel reform before the election, one hopes that the government will back this bill. Shame on them if they don’t.

  • “Require claimants to show substantial harm, and corporate bodies to show financial loss”

    That’s fine, provided that “substantial harm” is not limited to tangible loss. It should include substantial emotional distress and/or harm to ones good name, especially if the accused has told intentional lies.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • James Fowler
    @Lorenzo Cherin. Blessed New Zealand again. If only Britain could be an island 1000 miles from the nearest landmass with about 5.5 million people instead of 65 ...
  • Simon Banks
    Paul, do you not realise that all-up elections are common in the UK, usually every four years? It's normal for county councils and for many more local councils....
  • James Fowler
    Conservative attempts to extend FPTP are clearly a form of gerrymandering, though it could cost them dear in some scenarios as we saw in 97, 01 and 05. Voter ID...
  • Brad Barrows
    @expats I think it is well over the top to suggest that passing a law to make electoral fraud more difficult is something that you could expect from a dictator...
  • Helen Dudden
    Our country is a total mess. That's about all we can honestly say. Was Dawn Butler right to call the Prime Minister a li..? I thought that we needed huma...