Members of Parliament launched their first attack on the UK’s libel laws in a Westminster Hall debate on Wednesday. In what is likely to be the first of a series of attempts to clarify legislation on libel and defamation, several MPs from across the House criticised the libel laws in the UK, with particular reference to the phenomenon of ‘libel tourism’ whereby foreigners are allowed to sue in English courts for material published in other countries.
The news is significant because the laws as they stand are regarded as a very disturbing limitation on free speech, restricting the rights of newspapers, websites and publishers to report alleged stories or to make comment on certain issues.
The government’s justice minister, Bridget Prentice, conceded certain points in the debate. In particular, she is considering the introduction into statute law of the so-called Reynolds principles – rules on qualified privilege which give media organisations the opportunity to use a public interest defence when they make serious allegations against an individual.
There will also be a public consultation in the New Year on the internet and its relationship with defamation law. As the statute book stands there is little guidance for writers and bloggers who link to disputed or libellous articles, and it is therefore one of the most hotly disputed areas of law. Prentice also seemed to suggest a possible decriminalisation of criminal libel, while there will also be discussion about the excessive costs of defamation proceedings and the possibility of a small claims court for plaintiffs.
The debate had been secured by Dennis MacShane, the Labour Member for Rotherham, who embarked upon a fierce attack on lawyers and courts for “conspiring to shut down the cold light of independent thinking and writing about some of the richest and most powerful people in the world are up to”. He went on: “The practice of libel tourism as it is known – the willingness of British courts to allow wealthy foreigners who do not live here to attack publications that have no connection with Britain – is now an international scandal. It shames Britain and makes a mockery of the idea that Britain is a protector of core democratic freedoms.” He also pointed out the recent proposal in the US Congress to prevent American authors whose books were on open sale in the US from being pursued for fines in the UK courts.
He raised specific concerns over an author who had been forced to pulp her book and to pay a fine and costs, even though the book had been published in the United States rather than in Britain. The book investigated the flow of money into extremist organisations which deny democracy, and particularly the impact of the Saudi Arabian oligarchs on the process. In another example, he said that Cambridge University Press – ‘one of the flowers of British publishing for centuries’ – had had to pulp a book rather than face libel action. The serious implications for free speech were clear from these instances of ‘censorship’, MacShane said.
Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat MP for North Norfolk, echoed MacShane’s concerns, with a particular reference to the necessity of investigative journalism. He cited the case of British Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi, who, he alleged, had made ‘strenuous attempts to close down public debate’. He finished his remarks with the observation that “the question is whether UK libel laws have the disproportionate effect of discouraging legitimate reporting. Many believe that they do.”
Tom King
Dec 19, 2008
Email this article
Printer friendly page
Previous Page
