Three weeks ago the great former Sunday Times editor Sir Harry Evans accused the national press of gross distortion and staggering misrepresentation in their coverage of Lord Justice Leveson’s report. Well, since then it has got a lot worse. Continue reading
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Month: February 2013 (Page 2 of 5)
Five days ago, the Conservatives outlined their plans for implementing the Leveson Recommendations (the Recommendations”) by creating an independent panel, established by Royal Charter, to verify that any new press regulator is effective. Yesterday, the Information Commissioner put a spanner in these works; he has published outline plans for his own voluntary Code of Practice and is consulting on its possible content. Continue reading
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Tamiz v Google Inc ([2013] EWCA Civ 68) comes at a moment when defamation on the internet is in the spotlight. It has been ‘the elephant in the room’ during the Leveson inquiry, it is being considered in relation to this year’s Defamation Bill, and has recently been the subject of decisions by Commonwealth courts which have diverged from the established position in England and Wales. The judgment is the first time the Court of Appeal has considered the topic. Continue reading
The rule of thumb that the Royals don’t sue is not a matter of strict legal advice (Prince Charles has seen to that) – but it is trite law that dead Royals don’t sue, and certainly not in defamation cases. Hilary Mantel may be safe from a writ from Anne Boleyn or Princess Diana, but could she expect a claim from the Duchess of Cambridge – assuming she is a living legal person, and not a plastic doll? Continue reading
On Sunday 17 February 2013 the “Daily Telegraph” published an article entitled, “Hugh Grant: Here’s the latest on my private life”. This disingenuous piece purports to highlight the supposed hypocrisy of Mr Grant, who is a board member of Hacked Off and campaigns against press intrusion, in announcing the birth of his son on twitter. The article says
Carina Trimingham has withdrawn the appeal in her harassment and privacy claim against the publisher of the Daily Mail. This was a matter of principle; brought because Carina and her legal team are convinced that the way the Daily Mail wrote about her, and in particular referred to her looks and her sexuality, was simply not acceptable. Continue reading
One of the key recommendations of the Leveson Report is that a new independent press regulator should provide a “fair, quick and inexpensive” arbitration service. This is one of three “arms” of the new regulator: standards enforcement, complaints handling and arbitration. It is proposed that the arbitration service will deal with “civil” complaints – cases which would otherwise be the subject of Court proceedings. There is a helpful diagram in the Report (Vol 4, K, 4.3, p.1759). Continue reading
This week the Court of Appeal handed down a judgment in the case of Tamiz v Google ([2013] EWCA Civ 68) in which dismissed the appeal by Payam Tamiz against last year’s decision which set aside his claim against Google on Jameel grounds, but disagreed with Eady J’s conclusion that Google was not a publisher at common law and had an unassailable defence under section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 (see “In the Courts, below). Continue reading
Over the last few days a number of courageous NHS whistleblowers have defied the terms of “confidentiality agreements” and spoken out about concerns that they had about the way in which trusts and hospitals were run. You might think that the villains were obvious: secrecy obsessed public authorities spending public money to buy off public criticism. But you would be wrong. The “Daily Mail” knows that the true villain is Lord Justice Leveson.
Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2023 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑