Published here: http://www.absw.org.uk/news-events/news/730-clegg-promises-libel-law-reform
© 2009 Association of British Science Writers
This spring the Coalition Government will launch its draft Defamation Bill to reform libel laws that "are having a chilling effect on scientific debate and investigative journalism," according to deputy prime minister and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg in his speech on civil liberties on 7 January.
This reform will make Britain the first country to ask its legislative body to set out its libel laws and provide greater clarity. Clegg is committed to relaxing Britain's libel laws so that academics and journalists are not "bullied into silence" for fear of being sued. Lord Tom McNally, Liberal Democrat minister in the justice department, is preparing the bill.
The draft will be published in late March and the final version will be published this summer according to an interview with Sile Lane, campaigns manager for Sense About Science, a charitable trust and part of the Libel Reform Campaign. Final legislation could be enacted by 2012.
The bill will include restrictions on corporate and public bodies and will bring the law up to date. It will also simplify and strengthen existing defences and restrict libel tourism in which plaintiffs file libel suits in jurisdictions likely to give a more favourable result. A new statutory defence will be provided for journalists and scientists who speak out on important issues.
In his speech, Clegg said that "beyond providing greater access to information, [the government needs] to make sure that, where people discover injustice and bad practice, they can speak out against it too".
Sense About Science conducted a survey which showed that "a third of editors of academic journals said the[y] had been threatened with libel actions," Lane told ABSW. Editors have "asked for changes in how papers were written, to protect themselves from libel actions".
Recent cases bring to light the need for reform. Science writer Simon Singh experienced a lengthy court battle with the British Chiropractic Association over an accusation of libel for an article in which he questioned certain chiropractic practices. Cardiologist Peter Wilmshurst fought a libel case brought against him by an American company after he criticised their research at a medical conference.
"Nobody wants to get rid of libel, but at the moment the law is unfair and entirely hostile to free speech and overly friendly to rich bullies trying to silence criticism," Singh told the ABSW. “The campaign for libel reform is about striking a fairer balance between claimants and defendants.”
John Kampfner, chief executive of the Index on Censorship which is part of the Libel Reform Campaign, wrote in The Independent: "We aim to repair a body of law that has seen countless individuals and voluntary organisations either sued in court or forced into apologising for and retracting comments, articles, and books, even though they have done nothing wrong."
"People who might oppose radical changes [to libel law] would be big libel claimant lawyer firms," said Lane. Libel law is complex and claimant lawyers may argue that it is too specialised to be handled anywhere besides the high courts. This can lead to expensive cases involving long exchanges before trial, according to Tracey Brown, managing director of Sense About Science.
"Why do we assume libel should be a matter for high court?" asked Brown in her post for The Guardian’s OrganGrinder blog. She noted that according to human rights law, all EU member states must provide a remedy for damage to reputation. However, Brown added in her blog, this need not be done "through an arcane, chillingly expensive law in a higher court ... the defamation bill, if it delivers the fundamental reform so many are asking for, will make possible new ways of handling defamation."
Writers, publishers, NGOs, human rights lawyers, clinicians, academics and performers have emphasised different problems with the English libel law. But they all agree that rebalancing libel laws to protect free expression will require fundamental changes to the law and that libel laws are a matter for Parliament as well as the courts.
“Libel law was devised to avoid dragging someone's good name [through] the mud,” Tom Sheldon of the Science Media Centre, an organisation that promotes the views of the scientific community to the national media, told ABSW. "We want to see a law that allows scientists to comment on what evidence tells them, without being concerned whether that will offend shareholders, company directors, etc."
Clegg's said in his speech that "our aim is to turn English libel laws from an international laughing stock to an international blueprint."
This reform will make Britain the first country to ask its legislative body to set out its libel laws and provide greater clarity. Clegg is committed to relaxing Britain's libel laws so that academics and journalists are not "bullied into silence" for fear of being sued. Lord Tom McNally, Liberal Democrat minister in the justice department, is preparing the bill.
The draft will be published in late March and the final version will be published this summer according to an interview with Sile Lane, campaigns manager for Sense About Science, a charitable trust and part of the Libel Reform Campaign. Final legislation could be enacted by 2012.
The bill will include restrictions on corporate and public bodies and will bring the law up to date. It will also simplify and strengthen existing defences and restrict libel tourism in which plaintiffs file libel suits in jurisdictions likely to give a more favourable result. A new statutory defence will be provided for journalists and scientists who speak out on important issues.
In his speech, Clegg said that "beyond providing greater access to information, [the government needs] to make sure that, where people discover injustice and bad practice, they can speak out against it too".
Sense About Science conducted a survey which showed that "a third of editors of academic journals said the[y] had been threatened with libel actions," Lane told ABSW. Editors have "asked for changes in how papers were written, to protect themselves from libel actions".
Recent cases bring to light the need for reform. Science writer Simon Singh experienced a lengthy court battle with the British Chiropractic Association over an accusation of libel for an article in which he questioned certain chiropractic practices. Cardiologist Peter Wilmshurst fought a libel case brought against him by an American company after he criticised their research at a medical conference.
"Nobody wants to get rid of libel, but at the moment the law is unfair and entirely hostile to free speech and overly friendly to rich bullies trying to silence criticism," Singh told the ABSW. “The campaign for libel reform is about striking a fairer balance between claimants and defendants.”
John Kampfner, chief executive of the Index on Censorship which is part of the Libel Reform Campaign, wrote in The Independent: "We aim to repair a body of law that has seen countless individuals and voluntary organisations either sued in court or forced into apologising for and retracting comments, articles, and books, even though they have done nothing wrong."
"People who might oppose radical changes [to libel law] would be big libel claimant lawyer firms," said Lane. Libel law is complex and claimant lawyers may argue that it is too specialised to be handled anywhere besides the high courts. This can lead to expensive cases involving long exchanges before trial, according to Tracey Brown, managing director of Sense About Science.
"Why do we assume libel should be a matter for high court?" asked Brown in her post for The Guardian’s OrganGrinder blog. She noted that according to human rights law, all EU member states must provide a remedy for damage to reputation. However, Brown added in her blog, this need not be done "through an arcane, chillingly expensive law in a higher court ... the defamation bill, if it delivers the fundamental reform so many are asking for, will make possible new ways of handling defamation."
Writers, publishers, NGOs, human rights lawyers, clinicians, academics and performers have emphasised different problems with the English libel law. But they all agree that rebalancing libel laws to protect free expression will require fundamental changes to the law and that libel laws are a matter for Parliament as well as the courts.
“Libel law was devised to avoid dragging someone's good name [through] the mud,” Tom Sheldon of the Science Media Centre, an organisation that promotes the views of the scientific community to the national media, told ABSW. "We want to see a law that allows scientists to comment on what evidence tells them, without being concerned whether that will offend shareholders, company directors, etc."
Clegg's said in his speech that "our aim is to turn English libel laws from an international laughing stock to an international blueprint."
No comments:
Post a Comment