The Lord Chancellor and Ministry of Justice Jack Straw has continued his support for reform of the law of libel – showing admirable responsiveness to public opinion or pandering to interest group lobbying (depending on your point of view). There have been two developments today. First, the “Libel Working Group” has reported. The 85 page report deals with four areas “libel tourism”, the multiple publication rule, a statutory public interest defence and procedural issues. On libel tourism it considered that more rigorous application of the current rules would be appropriate (pp.15-17), the (pro-media) majority were of the view that a single publication rule with discretion was the best option (p.21). It recommended further work on a statutory public interest defence (p.33).
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Month: March 2010 (Page 2 of 5)
The English law has not, traditionally, recognized what French lawyers call “image rights”. In the United States such rights are an aspect of the tort of privacy – the so-called “right to publicity” (for a recent case on these see here). But English law has, up to now, not recognised such rights. This means that, unless some issue of libel, copyright or “passing off” arises, the media can publish any photograph of a person, without their consent.
We recently discussed the English law of harassment in relation to the media. We have also considered the “positive obligation” to protect Article 8 privacy rights as developed by the Court of Human Rights and on the “new law of privacy” in domestic law.
The following words echo many of the recent statements of the Court of Human Rights and English Courts about privacy:
“The right to privacy and respect for private lives of individuals and their families must be balanced against the right of the media to gather and report the news. The right of a free press to report details of an individual’s private life must be weighed against the rights of the individual to enjoy liberty and privacy.”
We have already blogged about the case of Jon Venables – who had his parole licence revoked for something “serious” but has not yet been charged with any new criminal offence. This is a story where there are very few public confirmed facts and where the individual who is being is written about, in practice, has no legal remedy to deal with inaccurate reporting. As a result, the press – and/or their imaginative “sources” – have free rein to say anything they like. There is no mechanism for checking the accuracy of the stories or ensuring that the press act in a responsible manner. Continue reading
In this regular feature we draw attention to the last week’s law and media news and next week’s upcoming events. If readers have any news or events which they would like to draw attention to please add them by way of comments on this post. We are particularly interested in forthcoming events which readers might like to attend.
News
The challenge by “Lawyers for Media Standards” to the Lord Chancellor’s his decision to reduce the maximum success fee in defamation claims to 10% has finally been picked up by the mainstream media. Michael Peel wrote an article in the FT under the headline “Libel Lawyers hit back in free speech” debate. Strictly speaking, the challenge has nothing whatever to do with any “free speech debate” but, rather, relates to the lawfulness of a decision about CFA success fees.
My first thought: given that the debate is about freedom of speech, isn’t it just a little bit ironic that the debate is so one-sided? We may be hearing from the press and those who hold a brief for the press, in the press, that libel claimants should bear the burden of proving damage and falsity; that libel damages should be capped in any case, however serious, at £10,000; that companies should not be permitted to maintain a libel action unless they can prove malice; that there is “no robust public interest defence in libel law” (notwithstanding the decisions in Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127 and Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2006] UKHL 44; [2007] 1 AC 359), and so on.
In this feature we revisit some older posts which may still be of current interest. This was first posted on 14 February 2010
The French law of defamation and privacy has developed with little or no direct interaction with the common law. French privacy law has, in recent years, provided strong protection – including for politicians (whose protection by English privacy law is severely limited by “public interest” considerations). The French law also protects “image rights” in a way which is presently unknown in England. For example, President Sarkozy and his wife, Carla Bruni, recovered damages from Ryanair for the unauthorised use of a photograph of them in an advertising campaign.
The ability of an individual to go to a court and obtain an injunction which prevents the press from publishing what it wants to publish – whether for the purpose of protecting privacy or for some other reason – is obviously a particularly important issue in the free speech context. It is important because, as Lord Northcliffe, that early pioneer of popular tabloid journalism and the founder of the Daily Mail, remarked when asked about the stock in trade of his newspapers: “News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress.”
At the centre of recent debates about freedom of speech has been the topic of injunctions, specifically so-called ‘super-injunctions’, a term which has been used to conjure up the spectre of judicial censorship; of Kafkaesque secret justice being administered behind closed doors; of the Court seeking to place a fetter on Parliamentary debate and the reporting by the press of that debate; of a conspiracy of silence and of the public being denied their right to know.
In this feature we revisit some older posts which may still be of current interest. This was first posted on 7 February 2010
In a thoughtful speech entitled “Freedom of Expression and the Role of a Supreme Court” Dame Mary Arden considered a number of freedom of expression cases which had come before Supreme Courts around the world. She posed the question as to whether Supreme courts should lead the development of the law in this area or leave sensitive matters to democratically elected politicians. Although the decisions of the courts in freedom of expression and privacy cases have often been extremely controversial, such cases did not come before the House of Lords with any regularity. The Supreme Court has made one ruling in a “freedom of speech case” – Re Guardian News and Media ([2010] UKSC 1). The Court has given permission in one defamation case – Joseph v Spiller – which is likely to be heard later this year (see our post here)
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, it has become clear that the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (the “PFHA”), provides a much wider range of protection for victims of disturbing behaviour by others than was originally thought, it having first been designed to curb the activities of stalkers. In fact, in view of its subsequent wide interpretation, it is increasingly recognised as being, along with the Data Protection Act 1998, an “Article 8” statute, as its purpose is to protect an individual’s private life against the intrusion of others.
Recent Judgments
© 2026 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑