Naomi Campbell has won her defamation action against The Daily Telegraph newspaper. The Telegraph had alleged in articles in November 2012 that Ms Campbell planned to organise an elephant polo tournament for her partner’s birthday celebrations in India and was therefore promoting animal cruelty. However, there were never any such plans – Ms Campbell had neither organised nor requested the organisation of any elephant polo tournament. Continue reading
The judgment in OOO Ivpress and Others v. Russia (HEJUD  ECHR 67) provides a useful reminder of the importance of distinguishing “value judgments” from “facts” in libel cases and of the importance of engaging in a specific consideration as to whether a publication contributes to a debate of general interest. The case also reminds us of the strict standards which are applied to sanctions against political speech. Violations of Article 10 were found in four linked cases in which the Russian domestic courts had entered defamation judgments against the Ivanovo-Press newspaper. Continue reading
Journalisted is an independent, not-for-profit website built to make it easier for the public, to find out more about journalists and what they write about. It is run by the Media Standards Trust. It collects information automatically from the websites of British news outlets. Articles are indexed by journalist, based on the byline to the article. Keywords and statistics are automatically generated, and the site searches for any blogs or social bookmarking sites linking to each article. Continue reading
In Graiseley Properties Limited and others v Barclays Bank Plc  EWHC 67 (Comm) Mr Justice Flaux refused an application for anonymity orders made by 106 employees and former employees of Barclays in a test case arising from the LIBOR scandal on the basis that they had not established that it was strictly necessary for the proper administration of justice within Article 10(2) . Whilst the outcome is not particularly surprising, the part of the judgment relating to the application of Article 8 is curious and merits further consideration. Continue reading
Setting up a judge-led inquiry into press standards had a number of advantages when compared to previous government-appointed Royal Commissions on the press, government appointed reviews such as Calcutt, and Parliamentary Committee Inquiries. Lord Justice Leveson’s Inquiry enjoyed genuine operational independence from both press and government, and legitimacy from all sides of the debate. This was hugely important at a time when there was widespread loss of trust in the ability of politicians to deal with powerful media interests. Continue reading
Yesterday was Data Privacy Day – and new lawsuit has been launched against Google in the UK – one which highlights a number of key issues. It could be very important – a ‘landmark case’ according to a report on Reuters. The most notable thing about the case, for me, is that it is consumer-led: UK consumers are no longer relying on the authorities, and the Information Commissioner’s Office in particular, to safeguard their privacy. They’re taking it into their own hands. Continue reading
Over many years, politicians of all parties got too close to editors and proprietors in a way that damaged the public interest, and one result was the persistent failure of governments to do anything about press standards even when the public was crying out for action. Continue reading
On 1 January 2013, we published the third “Inforrm” Media Law Quiz – set by the winner of the 2010 and 2011 quizes, Benjamin Pell. There were 45 tough questions arising out of the Media Law Cases of the past 12 months. It may be that Mr Pell’s reputation for encyclopedic knowledge put off some potential contestants. Not many of our readers and contributors had the courage to submit entries. Thank you to those who did.