The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog

Month: January 2016 (Page 1 of 3)

Case Law, Sobrinho v Impresa: Serious allegations do not always mean serious harm – Nathan Capone

expresoThe case of Sobrinho v Impresa Publishing ([2016] EWHC 66 (QB)) was a defamation claim in respect of an article in a Portuguese newspaper which alleged illegality on the part of a banker.  Dingemans J held that this had not caused serious harm to the banker’s reputation in England and Wales. Further, the proceedings were an abuse of process, his reputation already having been vindicated in Portugal. Continue reading

Case Law: R (on the application of C) v Secretary of State for Justice, An open or shut case? – Alasdair Henderson

lady-haleWhen is it right to keep the names of parties to litigation a secret? That was the difficult question the Supreme Court had to grapple with in the case of  R(C) v. Secretary of State for Justice ([2016] UKSC 2). The decision to allow a double-murderer to remain anonymous led to outraged headlines in the tabloids. Yet the Court reached the unanimous conclusion that this was the right approach. Why? Continue reading

Theedom and Impresa: Lessons on serious harm – Claire Gill and Isabella Piasecka

Defamation ActAt first blush, the two most recent libel cases in which the question of serious harm has been tested, yielded contradictory findings.  Both cases were argued on the same day before different Judges at separate trials of preliminary issues. In Theedom v Nourish Training Ltd ([2015] EWHC 3769 (QB)) the court found that the Claimant had satisfied the threshold test of s.1 Defamation Act 2013. In Alvaro Sobrinho v Impresa Publishing SA ([2016] EWHC 66 (QB)) the court found that the threshold test had not been met and further, that the claim was an abuse of process. Continue reading

Case Law, R (Miranda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Stop Powers under Terrorism Act incompatible with Article 10 – David Scott

David Miranda 2On 19 January 2016 the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in R (on application of Miranda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department ([2016] EWCA Civ 6).  The case concerned David Miranda’s detention under the Terrorism Act 2000.  While upholding the lawfulness  of the detention in the immediate case, ruled that the stop powers under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act lack sufficient legal safeguards to be in line with Article 10. Continue reading

Harassment by Publication in the Media – Nicole Moreham

Law of Privacy and the MediaThe Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (“the Act”) is becoming an increasingly important tool for those seeking to protect their privacy against intrusion by the media and private individuals.  The Act was introduced to combat stalking, racial harassment, and disruption from neighbours, but ‘harassment’ is not defined in the Act and its reach is therefore in fact much wider.  It has the potential to catch a range of media news-gathering activities including persistent photography, trailing, and door-stepping. Continue reading

Why new regulator could be a game-changing moment for journalism – Steven Barnett

You are unlikely to read about it about in the mainstream press, but this week saw a major step forward for genuinely independent press regulation in the UK. The new press regulator IMPRESS (Independent Monitor for the Press) has announced that it has not only signed up a dozen publishers but that it has submitted an application for formal recognition. This will now be assessed by the Press Recognition Panel (PRP), the wholly independent body established by cross-party agreement. Continue reading

Privacy, the internet and social media – Godwin Busuttil, Gervase de Wilde and Felicity McMahon

Law of Privacy and the MediaThe ascendancy of social media poses acute challenges for privacy. Internet-based services such as Facebook and Twitter can confer major advantages on users in terms of access to information, ease of communication, and opportunities for network-building. But the ordinary concomitant is a significant surrender of personal privacy.  Participation generally entails the disclosure of, and the ceding of control over, one’s personal data. Continue reading

« Older posts

© 2021 Inforrm's Blog

Theme by Anders NorénUp ↑