The Strange Decline of the English Defamation Trial

7 01 2011

As we noted in our recent round up of “Defamation Trials, Summary Determinations and Assessments” there were only four defamation trials in 2010 – with one still awaiting judgment.  All these trials were by judge alone and none involved English media defendants.  The number of defamation trials has been slowly declining for many years.  There were, for example, at least 16 defamation trials in 1990 and 12 in 1991.  The number of trials in recent years is set out  in the Table below – the overall number of trials is shown in the first bar, the number of jury trials in the second and the number of trials with media defendants in the third.

The declining number of jury trials is particularly striking – this is the first year in living memory in which there have been no defamation jury trials.  It seems unlikely that, with the exception of special wartime arrangements, that there has ever been a year without a such a trial.  The great “set piece” defamation jury trials seem to be becoming increasingly rare.

It seems to us that there are number of reasons for the downward trend in the number of defamation trials in recent years.

First and, we suspect most importantly, there is the deterrent effect of increasing costs in libel cases which is a strong disincentive to both claimants and defendants to contest libel trials.  The risk of huge costs liabilities means that both claimants and defendants settle libel actions which they might otherwise have wished to take to trial to vindicate their rights.

Second, there is the “offer of amends” procedure which has led to a substantial increase in the early settlement of defamation claims.  The great advantage of this procedure for defendants is that it allows for the early admission of liability with, if the offer is accepted, a substantial “discount” on the damages payable (usually of the order of 50%) and, in the (now uncommon) event that settlement is not reached, assessment by a judge.

Third, there is perhaps an increasing willingness on the part of judges to dispose of bad claims (or bad defences) summarily.

In the absence of research it is impossible to know the relative importance of the various factors – and of others which may be relevant.   We would be interested in our readers’ views on this topic.


Actions

Information

4 responses

7 01 2011
Judith Townend

Obviously limited information is known about behind-the-scenes negotiations, but it would seem relevant to include information about any libel cases that reach English courts, including settlements and withdrawals (as collected by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, for example – http://www.rpc.co.uk/index.php?option=com_flexicontent&view=items&id=5808%3Anumber-of-new-defamation-claims-leaps-15-in-one-year&Itemid=92).

What other data sources/reports would readers recommend? I’m looking at this as part of my doctoral research at the Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism at City University London. If you have suggestions/ideas to further investigate this area, please do get in touch via http://meejalaw.com or jt [dot] townend [at] gmail.com. Thank you.

7 01 2011
INFORRM

We are going to do a post shortly about how cases which do not go to hearings are disposed of. The only “definitive” data source is the annual “Judicial Statistics” (which Reynolds Porter Chamberlain rely on).

10 01 2011
Monday media law mop up: Clegg on libel, NOTW suspension & Twitter debates | media law & ethics

[…] position on libel reform discussed here (there will be an event tomorrow evening on the subject); the number of actual defamation trials that take place in England & Wales; and deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg’s use of the issue in his civil […]

17 01 2011
Tracing “unaccounted for” defamation actions « Law, Justice and Journalism

[…] 200 and 300 defamation claims each year, very few are disposed of at hearings, let alone make it to full trial. So what happens to all the others? Inforrm comments: …. the total of all the cases we have […]

Leave a Reply




%d bloggers like this: