On 3 January 2012, we set the second “Inforrm” Media Law Quiz – 49 tough questions arising out of the Media Law Cases of the past 12 months. Thank you to everyone who submitted entries. Assiduous reading of the blog enabled many to spot the trick questions and the other pitfalls laid by the quizmaster. After careful analysis of the answers there was again a clear winner – once again with an impressive 100% of correct answers – Mr Benjamin Pell. Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Month: January 2012 (Page 3 of 4)
One by one the editors pop up in front of Lord Justice Leveson and agree that there should be tougher regulation of the press. They may warn of the need to avoid throwing the baby of challenging journalism out with the bathwater of unethical conduct, but most of them accept that the Press Complaints Commission, as presently constituted, is not up to the job. Continue reading
Last week was Week 6 of the Leveson evidence hearings. The Inquiry began to hear evidence from the press. We had a full report of the evidence on 15 January 2012. The Inquiry heard from the Sun, the Daily Mail, the Financial Times, the Independent, the Telegraph and from Express Newspapers. In addition to the editors and executives, the proprietor of Express Newspapers, Richard Desmond, gave evidence. Continue reading
In Week 6 of the evidence hearings the Leveson Inquiry began to hear evidence from the press. The first week was devoted to the “Sun”, the “Financial Times”, the “Independent”, the “Mail” (with Paul Dacre saved up for later) and the “Express”. The highlight of the week was the evidence of Richard Desmond, prorietor of the Express newspapers who made a strong, albeit inadvertent, case for statutory press regulation. Continue reading
The need for there to be a public interest in play for the defence of honest comment to succeed is well established. But the question of how the position in the common law relates to the rights of the parties under the Human Rights Act has not been addressed. The issue was taken up in a judgment given by Tugendhat J on October 11 2010 in an action brought by Peter Andre against Katie Price ([2010] EWHC 2572 (QB)). It was subject to a postponement of reporting order under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 as a jury trial was due to take place and not published until the action was finally settled just before Christmas 2011. Continue reading
If you lose your mobile phone with highly confidential and private information on it, all may not be lost. The unscrupulous finder may be prevented from blurting its contents all over the web, even if the identity of that person is unknown to you or the court. It requires considerable input of computer expertise, but it is possible, as the case of AMP v Persons Unknown (cleverly taken in the Technology and Construction Court) illustrates.
The applicant’s mobile phone was reported to the police as stolen after she lost it at university in 2008. It contained digital images of an explicit sexual nature which were taken for the personal use of her boyfriend at the time. The applicant was alone in the photos and her face was clearly visible. Continue reading
In a post earlier this week we considered the final hearings in defamation claims in 2011. But not all defamation cases are dealt with at hearings or trials. A substantial number were settled by the defendant agreeing to pay damages and costs and making a statement in open court. With the invaluable assistance of Mr Benjamin Pell we have now identified 24 (not the 15 mentioned in our earlier post). This substantially down from 46 statements made in 2010 (see our January 2010 post on the disposal of defamation actions). In contrast to the determinations by the courts, the large majority of these (21 out of 24) involved the mainstream media. There is a list of statements in open court at the bottom of this post. Continue reading
A recent United Nations Human Rights Council report examined the important question of whether internet access is a human right. Whilst the Special Rapporteur’s conclusions are nuanced in respect of blocking sites or providing limited access, he is clear that restricting access completely will always be a breach of article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the right to freedom of expression. Continue reading
Am I the only one who thought The Sun got off rather lightly at Leveson? It is absolutely right that newspaper editors should be able to shout about the good work they do. As Lord Justice Leveson said, “it is extremely important to emphasise the positive” role that newspapers play, as well as scrutinizing the negative. Continue reading
The state of libel litigation in England and Wales in 2011 can be summarised like this: no jury trials, not much media involvement and similar numbers of cases to 2010. There were 23 first instance defamation hearings before High Court Judges which resulted in the final disposal of libel actions (in 2010 there were 21). The defendants were successful in 13 of these cases, that is 57% of the total (in 2010 the defendants were successful in 17 or 81% of cases). Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2026 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑