The round up is back, following a break over Easter. The Defamation Bill is now coming to the end of its passage through Parliament. On 16 April 2013 it will be back before the Commons on “ping pong”, the stage at which the Commons considers new amendments made by the House of Lords. As Inforrm noted here, in a post examining the detail of the Amendments, there were 16 Lords Amendments. Conservative MP and former Solicitor-General, Sir Edward Garnier, has sought to remove Amendment 2. Continue reading
Inforrm's Blog
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Page 479 of 651
I feel as if I write this same thing about once every year. Someone rushes to court to get an injunction preventing the release of information. It’s based on breach of confidence. Here it’s the Earthquake Commission seeking to prevent the release of a database containing assessments about 83,000 Christchurch claims. Continue reading
The Defamation Bill is coming to the end of its long passage through parliament. It received its “first reading” in the House of Commons on 12 May 2012 – presented by the then Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke. On 16 April 2013 it will be back before the Commons on “ping pong” – the stage at which the Commons considers new amendments made by the House of Lords. There were sixteen Lords Amendments. The Conservative MP and former Solicitor-General, Sir Edward Garnier, has been criticised for seeking to remove one of them – Amendment 2 “Non-Natural Persons”. Continue reading
On 4 March 2013, a number of senior judges formally responded [pdf] to the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper 209 on Contempt of Court [pdf]. The response is, as might be expected, a careful and considered document sensitive to the right of freedom of expression, in for example, expressing concerns about suggested new powers to make “take down” orders. It is, therefore, at first sight surprising that this document should feature in the Sun newspaper on two successive days. Continue reading
This year seems destined to go down in South African constitutional history as the one in which the battle between free speech and national security was fought. The contest between these competing interests was brought into sharp focus again this week, in President Jacob Zuma’s message of condolence at the memorial service of the 13 soldiers tragically killed in the Central African Republic (CAR). Continue reading
In last month’s unanimous judgment in Rothschild v Associated Newspapers Limited ([2013] EWCA Civ 197) the Court of Appeal upheld a decision that the defence of justification had been established in a claim brought by the financier Nat Rothschild against the Daily Mail. The case provides interesting guidance on the circumstances in which a defendant need prove only part of the defamatory allegations which have been made. Continue reading
The Mail on Sunday and the Daily Telegraph are alarmed about ‘secret arrests’ – which, as usual, they blame on Lord Justice Leveson. The complaint concerns proposed new guidelines from the Association of Chief Police Officers under which “forces will be banned from confirming the names of suspects”. The Mail calls it “a chilling new threat to the right to know” and holds out the prospect of people being swept off the streets in the manner of North Korea and Zimbabwe. The Telegraph says that critics are condemning the proposal as an attack on open justice. Continue reading
In its judgment in Core Issues Trust v. Transport for London [2013] EWHC 651 (Admin), which is sure to provoke heated debate, the High Court ruled that the banning of an advert which read “NOT GAY! EX-GAY, POST-GAY AND PROUD. GET OVER IT!” from appearing on London buses was handled very badly by Transport for London (“TfL”) but was not unlawful or in breach of the human rights of the group behind the advert. Continue reading
The Leveson amendments to the Crime & Courts Bill could pose a very significant threat to freedom of expression on the internet unless greater clarity in the definitions is achieved. The devil is all in the detail and very careful scrutiny is required to ensure that it does not have unintended consequences. Continue reading
Recent media coverage, particularly in the Guardian reveals a worrying new trend in our society – the dissemination of “creepshots” and “revenge porn” online, ruining reputations and, often, lives.
To the uninitiated, creepshots are surreptitiously taken photographs, usually sexual in nature, mostly of women (often very young women) and revenge porn is a category of explicit photographs and videos, usually taken with consent at the time, (for private use in relationships) but later used to bully, intimidate or blackmail vulnerable individuals (again, largely young women). Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2026 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑