Libel reform debate hots up as new Government takes advice on reform

28 May 2010 by

Set the ball rolling

The recent announcement of the review of libel and privacy law by a high-profile panel has led to a flurry of conjecture, comment and proposals. The new Government has pledged to reform the law of libel, but what shape will the reforms take?

The committee, which was announced last month, is being led by Lord Neuberger, the head of the Court of Appeal, and will be composed of legal and media experts. One notable absence, as Joshua Rozenberg blogs, is Mr Justice Eady, who has been responsible for many of the more controversial “super injunctions”.

The new Coalition Government have pledged to “reform libel laws to protect freedom of speech“. Cases involving libel, defamation and super-injunctions have seen two competing European Convention rights fighting it out; Article 8 (right to privacy) versus Article 10 (freedom of expression).

We have previously posted on the super injunction which was imposed and then swiftly lifted on press coverage of Chelsea footballer and England Captain John Terry’s extra-marital affair. Another controversial recent case was the Simon Singh libel action brought by the British Chiropractic Association. which raised issues of freedom of scientific expression and led the Court of Appeal to robustly attack the chilling effect of such actions.

In response to the calls for reform, Lord Lester of Hern Hill has drafted a libel reform Private Members Bill, which can be found here. The Inforrm Blog has provided a brief commentary on the bill, concluding that

Our overall verdict on first reading is that the Bill contains some solid work and interesting proposals.   But it is not radical or wide ranging and does not “rebalance” or “recast” the law of libel.  If anything it will add a further layers of complexity and increase costs.   It is not a substitute for a thoroughgoing review of the existing law.

Former Law Lord Lord Steyn has also provided his opinion, at the annual Boydell Lecture, which Inforrm reports was “very much in line with the arguments of “libel reformers” although, we anticipate, more radical than Lord Lester’s proposed bill.

Zoe Margolis, who recently won a libel action against the Independent on Sunday for calling her a “hooker”, writes in the Guardian that the reforms should not restrict the current routes to justice open to potential litigants. She says

after my own experience of suing a national newspaper there is one law I now believe should remain intact: not limiting the percentages of costs lawyers receive as a premium – to balance the risk (eg losing) they take on – which are added to their fees when they win a case on a conditional fee agreement (CFA) (“No win, no fee”) basis. Libel is prohibitively expensive – and this obviously needs to change – so if you’re of limited financial means you’ll have no ability to pursue a claim without a CFA

It is difficult to predict which of the many suggestions for libel reforms the new Government will choose. However, a clue may be found in Lord Neuberger’s recent lecture on the topic, where he said “Where justice is carried out in secret, away from public scrutiny, bad habits can develop. Even if they don’t develop, the impression may arise that they have done so“.

In light of this, it would be surprising if the reforms were not in favour of freedom of expression over privacy. However, in a call to restrict the fees of libel lawyers, this may end up limiting the access to justice of those who feel they have been defamed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: