In June and July 2012 we published a number of posts as part of an “Inforrm Debate” on the issue as to whether trial by jury should be abolished in libel cases. On 13 July 2012 we published a poll to find out whether our readers favoured the abolition of the statutory right to jury trial contained in clause 11 of the Defamation Bill.
The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog
Tag: Inforrm Debate
Over the last few weeks we have published a number of posts about the right to jury trial in libel cases. At present, clause 11 of the Defamation Bill removes the right to jury trial in cases of libel and slander. This will, in practice, mean that libel cases, in the future, will always be tried by judge alone. Continue reading
The Government proposes to abolish the right to trial by jury in libel cases. Opponents seek the retention of the right in the established form of a “presumption” in favour of libel trials in jury cases unless the case involves “prolonged examination of documents”. Is it possible to find a middle way? It is important to consider the arguments on both sides to see whether there is any possible common ground. Continue reading
I am a long-term member of the Jury Charge committee of my state bar in the United States, a committee that writes the legal instructions to the jury in civil cases, and was thus very pleased to observe the closing arguments and the Judge’s summing up to the jury in the recent trial of Cooper v Evening Standard and Associated Newspapers, a civil jury trial that arose from a newspaper article that incorrectly reported that Mr. Cooper was a ringleader who organised the Millbank riots in November 2011. Continue reading
The Defamation Bill which is presently before Parliament provides for the abolition of the right to trial by jury in libel cases. Clause 11 of the Bill provides for the removal of the right to jury trial in such cases – a right which has been enshrined in law for nearly 100 years (see our post on the historical background). This clause was approved by the Defamation Bill Committee last week. Continue reading
Defamation is a rich man’s sport. Only the super-rich or those on “no win, no fee” agreements with their lawyers can begin to afford the astronomic cost of a libel action. Why? Because there are too many uncertainties in defamation actions. First and foremost amongst these is ‘trial by jury’, a quite extraordinary hang-over from the past, which in too many cases bears little or no resemblance to justice. Continue reading
The jury award of £60,000 libel damages to PhD student Luke Cooper was a vindication not only of Luke Cooper’s reputation, it was a vindication of the jury itself and a reminder of what effective justice a jury can deliver. Events in Court 13 last Friday remind us that, when newspapers demonise individuals and refuse to admit they are wrong, there is no more appropriate and telling vindication than the unanimous verdict and award of damages by a jury. Continue reading
The right to trial by jury was a fundamental feature of both criminal and civil procedure under the common law. While the right to trial by jury is seen, by most commentators, as a fundamental right in criminal cases, it has over the last century and a half been gradually eroded in civil cases. Continue reading
The Defamation Bill 2012 has had its second reading and is now at the Committee Stage in the House of Commons. The Committee has not yet reached clause 11 which is headed “Trial to be without a jury unless the court orders otherwise”. This clause removes the right to jury trial in actions for libel and slander. As a result, such actions are in the same category as all other claims: such actions “shall be tried without a jury unless the court in its discretion orders it to be tried with a jury” (section 69(3), Senior Courts Act 1981). Continue reading
Recent Judgments
© 2024 Inforrm's Blog
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑