The UK Government has promulgated a new definition of extremism. The new definition changes the focus from action to ideology. In 2011, the government’s Prevent strategy defined extremism as the “active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”.

The new definition says extremism “is the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to: 1 negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or 2 undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or 3 intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2)”. The Media Law Podcast discusses the implications of the change in its latest episode, available here. The BBC, Guardian, Aljazeera, Reuters and Financial Times are some of the many outlets to cover the change of definition.

The latest episode of the Panopticon Podcast looks at the regulation of Artificial Intelligence, more information on how to listen here.

Internet and Social Media

As discussed further below, the US House of Representatives has passed a landmark bill that could see TikTok banned in the USA. The Times explores the potential impact of a ban on British business.

Data Privacy and Data Protection

The HawkTalk blog has an article commenting on speakers at the Data Protection Forum in early March 2024, arguing they reinforced the reasoning that the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill should be used as a vehicle to implement the EU’s AI Act.

Axios has an article explaining how the use of large language models is creating data privacy issues because they tend to disclose personal information they scrape from the internet without the consent of the data subject. Artificial intelligence data leaks come in many forms, such as an accidental disclosure or through malicious actions like building a model that circumvents privacy controls.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has reprimanded the London Mayor’s Officer for Policing and Crime for an error in their web form to complain about the Metropolitan Police Service, which revealed victims’ data. 394 people have been notified of potential personal data breaches.

The ICO has issued reprimands to Dover Harbour Board and Kent Police after they breached data protection law. Officers from both organisations used instant-messaging service WhatsApp and Telegram on their personal phones to share information for the purpose of combatting vehicle crime.

Surveillance

Airbnb has banned indoor surveillance devices, including cameras and audio recorders, in its rental properties as part of an update to security policies. NPR has more information here.

Art, Music and Copyright

IPKat has an article examining the copyright issues raised in the Kate Middleton Mother’s Day royal photograph saga. The official social media accounts for The Prince and Princess of Wales published a photograph of Kate Middleton with her three children to mark Mother’s Day. Major news and photo organizations then issued a ‘kill notice’ regarding the photograph because the image appeared to have been manipulated.

IPSO

Statements in Open Court and Apologies

The Daily Mirror has followed the Guardian and apologised to Dan Wootton for reporting on a police investigation against the former GB News presenter. The title is one of a number of publications and individuals to receive a letter from Wootton’s lawyers after reporting that he was the subject of a police investigation. The Press Gazette has more information.

New Issued Cases

There were five Defamation (libel and slander) claims and one Harassment claim filed on the Media and Communications list last week.

Last Week in the Courts

On Monday 11 March 2024, Steyn J handed down judgment on damages in Schofield v Politicalite Ltd & Anor [2024] EWHC 543 (KB). Mr Schofield was awarded £90,000 for an article published by the defendant’s which contained various defamatory and false allegations, including that Mr Schofield was involved in grooming children and/or young people. These allegations were untrue and seriously defamatory. The Press Gazette and 5RB have more information.

On the same day, Kerr J heard an appeal in the case of Chief Constable of Kent v McLoughlin, KA-2023-000118.

On 12 March 2024 there was a hearing  in the case of Bennion and others v Prestfelde School Limited QB-2021-000343.

On 13 March 2024 there was a Pre-Trial Review in the case of Harrison v Cameron QB-2022-002468.

On the same day, the decision on the Defendant’s application for summary judgment or strike out was handed down in Courtney v Ronksley [2024] EWHC 572 (KB). The claim related to a letter published to a board of trustees which the Claimant alleged raised safeguarding concerns imputing, inter alia, that the trustees put children and young people in their care at risk, and had scant regard for and cannot be trusted with the health and safety and safeguarding of the students in their care [14]. Summary judgment was awarded to the Defendant. There was no sign in the evidence that the Claimant has a case on serious reputational harm which meets the statutory threshold and has a real prospect of succeeding. None of the direct evidence from or about the publishees supports a case that they thought seriously the worse of Mr Courtney as a result of reading Mr Ronksley’s letter. No evidential groundwork was laid for an inference of serious reputational harm, caused by the letter, in the minds of the direct, or any wider, readership. The Claimant’s application “did not sufficiently advance beyond the speculative, or the optimistic hope that, as a result of further research, disclosure and cross-examination, ‘something may turn up’ to prove what he wants to be able to show.” To that extent the claim was entirely without real substance [58].

On the same day, judgment was handed down by Tipples J in Piepenbrock v Michell & Ors [2024] EWHC 544 (KB). The claim for defamation, harassment, discrimination, malicious falsehood, negligence or the tort of intentionally causing physical or psychiatric harm arose from a case referenced on the Cloisters’ website profile of barrister Paul Michell. Dr Piepenbrock claimed that some of these “defamatory statements and malicious falsehoods” were originally made by the LSE and repeated by Mr Michell as an agent acting on behalf of the LSE, and published by Cloisters. The Court struck out Dr Theodore Piepenbrock’s claim against the London School of Economics and 51 barristers at Cloisters Chambers, certifying it, and his application to lift a stay on the proceedings, as “totally without merit” [72]. Tipples J imposed a three-year extended civil restraint order (ECRO) on the Claimant, who had brought five proceedings against the LSE in the last eight years [108]. The previous claims all related to the same, or similar, factual matrix and were either stuck out or dismissed, and three ‘totally without merit’ orders made.

On Thursday 14 March 2024 there was a contempt application in the case of Taylor v Chief Constable of Kent, QB-2022-000310.

On Friday 15 March 2024 there was an application in the case of Leeds and Another v Burgess and Others, QB-2021-000067.

Media Law in Other Jurisdictions

Australia

The judge in Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation case has asked if Brittany Higgins should be recalled to give evidence over alleged ‘false representations’ in her $2.4m compensation payout. The Australian, Sydney Morning Herald and Daily Mail have more information.

An innocent man wrongly named as the assassin who murdered Perth bikie ex-boss Nick Martin has won his defamation case, with the person who posted the false accusation to Facebook ordered to pay him $250,000 in damages. WAtoday has more information here.

Canada

On 12 March 2024, judgment was handed down by the Kings Bench of Alberta concluding the claim of Ali v Pakistan Canada Association of Edmonton, Alberta, 2024 ABKB 138 (CanLII). Held, Mr. Ali did not prove his remaining claim for defamation because he failed to show the alleged statements were published and, in any event, he failed to prove malice. Further, the PCAE did not make out its counterclaim for defamation because it failed to show the PCAE was the subject of Mr. Ali’s statements.

Europe

On 7 March 2024, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) published an important decision in relation to IAB Europe’s Transparency and Consent Framework. According to The Data Protection Report, the judgment of the ECJ is unsurprising given previous case law on the definitions of “personal data” and “controller” under the GDPR and the ECJ’s emphasis that the overarching objective of the GDPR is to “[ensure] a high level of protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons”.

United States

The House of Representatives have passed the Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, a bill which has been characterised as having the power to ban TikTok. The bill names TikTok and its owner ByteDance Ltd and seeks to “protect the national security of the United States from the threat posed by foreign adversary controlled applications.” The Evan Law blog, Michael Geist blog, BBC, and NBC are some of the many outlets to cover the story.

A court in Florida has dismissed a defamation case brought against the Duchess of Sussex by her half-sister. Samantha Markle had taken legal action against Meghan Markle over comments she made to Oprah Winfrey and on her Netflix show, Harry And Meghan. Charlene Edwards Honeywell J found the plaintiff had “failed to identify any statements that could support a claim for defamation or defamation-by-implication”. Sky News has more information here.

Research and Resources

Next Week in the Courts 

On 19 – 20 March 2024, there will be the hearing of Rashid Naseer v Adil Farooq Raja QB-2022-002648.

On 21 March 2024, there will be an appeal in Zhang & other v Deng & other – KA-2023-000103

On 22 March 2024, there will be remedies hearing in Blake v Fox QB-2021-001248.

Reserved Judgments

BW Legal Services Limited v Trustpilot,  heard 7 March 2024 (HHJ Lewis)

 Francis v Pearson, heard 5 March 2024 (HHJ Lewis)

 Bridgen MP v Hancock MP, heard 1 March 2024 (Steyn J)

 Unity Plus Healthcare Limited v Clay and others,  heard 1 March 2024 (HHJ Lewis)

 Parsons v Atkinson, heard 26 and 27 February 2024 (Farbey J)

 Rodoy v Optical Express Ltd, heard 26 February 2024 (HHJ Lewis)

 Sinton v Maybourne Hotels Limited, heard 19 and 20 December 2023 (Chamberlain J)

 Pacini v Dow Jones, heard 13 December 2023 (HHJ Parkes KC)

 Amersi v BBC, heard 8 December 2023 (HHJ Lewis)

 Wilson v Mendelsohn and others, heard 4 to 8 December 2023 (HHJ Parkes KC)

 Mueen-Uddin v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 1 and 2 November 2023 (UK Supreme Court)

 George v Cannell and another, heard 17-18 October 2023 (UK Supreme Court)

 Harcombe v Associated Newspapers, heard 3 to 7 and 10 to 11 July 2023 (Nicklin J)

 MBR Acres v FREE THE MBR BEAGLES, heard 24-28 April 2023, 2-5, 9, 11-12, 15, 17-18, 22-23 May 2023 (Nicklin J)

This Round Up was compiled by Colette Allen who is the host of Newscast on Dr Thomas Bennett and Professor Paul Wragg’s The Media Law Podcast (@MediaLawPodcast).