Category: Uncategorized (Page 4 of 4)

The Government’s proposed statutory instrument to reduce the maximum success fee in libel Conditional Fee Agreements (“CFAs”) has been voted down by the House of Commons First Delegated Legislation Committee, by 11 votes to 5.   The record of the proceedings in the Committee can be found here, here, here and here.  After an interesting debate the Committee rejected the motion that the “Committee has considered That the Committee has considered the draft Conditional Fee Agreements (Amendment) Order 2010” by 11 votes to 5.  The debate is available on Parliament TV. Continue reading

My first thought: given that the debate is about freedom of speech, isn’t it just a little bit ironic that the debate is so one-sided?  We may be hearing from the press and those who hold a brief for the press, in the press, that libel claimants should bear the burden of proving damage and falsity; that libel damages should be capped in any case, however serious, at £10,000; that companies should not be permitted to maintain a libel action unless they can prove malice; that there is “no robust public interest defence in libel law” (notwithstanding the decisions in Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127 and Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2006] UKHL 44; [2007] 1 AC 359), and so on.

Continue reading

In this feature we revisit some older posts which may still be of current interest.  This was first posted on 8 February 2010

The EU Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs has  been considering the cross-jurisdictional dilemmas posed by actions for defamation and privacy.  It is working towards what is known as Rome II, which will be a series of rules regarding which court and which law will apply in disputes which involve more than one jurisdiction.  The particular dilemma concerning defamation and privacy actions arises from whether particular consideration ought to be given to the jurisdiction in which the editorial decision to publish was taken (as opposed to the jurisdiction, if different, in which the resulting damage took place).

Continue reading

In earlier posts (here and here) we have discussed media reporting concerning Jon Venables and the decision of the President of the Family Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss in 2001 following the judgment in Venables v News Group Newspapers ([2001] Fam 340).

Here is the text of the original order made by Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss (pictured right) on 22 June 2001 :

Continue reading

The death has been announced today of Michael Foot, the former Leader of the Labour Party at the age of 96.  As well as being a politician he was a distinguished journalist and editor – and the joint author, at the age of 27, of the best selling pamphlet in English political history – “The Guilty Men“.   Continue reading

According to the Journalism.co.uk website, the House of Commons Select Committee for Culture, Media and Sport on Press Standards, Privacy and Libel will publish its long awaited report at midnight on 24 February.

The Committee’s investigation is discussed on this blog here.   The Report is expected to consider and address whether the Human Rights Act 1998 needs to amended or “recalibrated” in order to adjust the balance in favour of the press, whether libel is in need of reform, the various phone hacking cases, superinjunctions, and the role of the PCC and whether a statutory regulator should be introduced.

The French law of defamation and privacy has developed with little or no direct interaction with the common law.  French privacy law has, in recent years, provided strong protection – including for politicians (whose protection by English privacy law is severely limited by “public interest” considerations).   Continue reading

The House of Commons Select Committee for Culture, Media and Sport on Press Standards, Privacy and Libel has received over the last 10 months  a plethora of written submissions and heard a considerable amount of evidence from interest groups, media organisations, lawyers, judges, editors, journalists and victims of the media in the UK. click here for submissions Continue reading

Welcome to the blog of the International Forum for Responsible Media – Inforrm for short.   The forum has been set up to provide a place for debating issues of media responsibility.

We believe in an independent, strong, free and responsible mass media.  The media has important privileges in the public interest to enable it to perform its role as a public watchdog.  But with those privileges go responsibilities.  The media’s right to freedom of expression must be properly balanced against the rights to privacy and reputation which are an essential part of human dignity.

In particular:

• The media should take reasonable steps to verify the truth of the stories that it publishes.  Anybody who is going to be the subject of media allegations of misconduct should normally be given the opportunity to comment on them first.
• If stories which are published turn out to be false, the media should publish prompt and appropriate corrections and apologies.  In appropriate cases, proper compensation should be paid.
• The media should respect people’s dignity and autonomy, it should not invade privacy without having good reasons in the public interest.   Anybody whose privacy is going to be invaded by the media should normally be informed in advance and given the opportunity to respond.

Responsible media are an essential part of a healthy social and political system.  The striking of the proper balance between expression, privacy and reputation is in the interests of all.  We will campaign for practical and legal measures which are designed to ensure that this balance is properly struck”.