Costs in Criminal Cases (Legal Costs) (Exceptions) Regulations 2013
Lord Faulks Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulks
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 25 November 2013 be approved.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to the draft Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2013.
The Costs in Criminal Cases (Legal Costs) (Exceptions) Regulations 2013 amend the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 to provide that acquitted defendants who have been found to be ineligible for legal aid as a result of the new Crown Court financial eligibility threshold of £37,500 or more annual disposable household income can receive a payment from central funds in respect of their private defence costs.
The purpose of the regulations is to introduce an additional exception to Section 16A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and the general rule that a defendant’s costs order may not require payment out of central funds in respect of the accused’s legal costs. This amendment allows acquitted Crown Court defendants ineligible for legal aid as a result of the new threshold to apply for a defendant’s costs order and to receive a payment from central funds in respect of their private defence costs at legal aid rates. This is in line with the changes made in respect of acquitted defendants in the magistrates’ court which were approved by Parliament during the passage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 makes a number of provisions in relation to costs in criminal cases, including in relation to defence costs. Section 16A, in relation to legal costs, provides certain exceptions to the general rule that a defendant’s costs order may not require the payment out of central funds of an amount in respect of the accused’s legal costs.
The draft instrument under consideration makes provision for an additional exception under Section 16A. It allows acquitted Crown Court defendants ineligible for legal aid as a result of the new threshold to receive a payment from central funds in respect of their legal costs. Such defendants would be reimbursed at the rates and scales set out by the Lord Chancellor in guidance, as provided for by Regulation 7(6) of the Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986.
The amendments introduced by this instrument are an important element of the introduction of a financial eligibility threshold in the Crown Court, to ensure that the wealthiest defendants would no longer automatically be provided with legal aid up front at public expense. The threshold has been set at a level where we believe the majority of defendants should be able to pay the defence costs of Crown Court cases privately, as set out in the Transforming Legal Aid: Next Steps response paper. There will, however, be a review mechanism to ensure that those individuals who really cannot pay their defence costs privately can be represented in court. This will be similar to the existing hardship scheme in the magistrates’ courts. As I outlined earlier, acquitted defendants, subject to your Lordships’ approval, will receive a payment from central funds at rates and scales set by the Lord Chancellor.
To conclude our proposals on criminal costs, the Government believe it is right to include an additional exception to allow acquitted Crown Court defendants ineligible for legal aid as a result of the new threshold to receive a payment from central funds in respect of their legal costs. Even though this will cost the public purse at a time of significant pressure on departmental budgets, it is a fair change to make given that such defendants will need to pay privately.
I now turn to the draft Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2013, which amend the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013. They amend the merits criteria that apply in applications for civil legal aid to prevent funding for cases assessed as having borderline prospects of success. It is important to note that this affects only certain applications for a specific form of service. The purpose of these regulations is to prevent cases assessed as having borderline prospects of success from receiving civil legal aid in the future.
In order to be funded, civil legal aid cases must pass the applicable merits test, as set out in the 2013 regulations. The aim of the test is to ensure that funding is targeted at the cases that most justify it. The prospects of success test is just one element of the overall merits criteria that civil legal aid cases are subject to, but it is an important element. Not all applications are subject to a prospects of success test. Only applications for full representation, a specific form of civil legal service, are directly subject to a prospects of success test. Therefore applications for legal help—the advice and assistance level of legal aid—and other types of service are not subject to this test. Also, there are certain categories of case, for example certain family and mental health cases, where the test does not apply. It is important to note that these cases are not affected by this instrument.
However, where the prospects of success test applies, its purpose is to ensure that taxpayers’ money is targeted at the cases that most justify it. It also ensures that weak cases are not funded. Currently, certain cases assessed as having borderline prospects of success can be funded in limited circumstances. The regulations that your Lordships are considering today will remove funding for cases assessed as having borderline prospects of success. I am aware that concerns have been raised about our policy on borderline cases. Let me deal with one or two of those. I recognise that there is some unease over the effect these regulations might have on the development of case law and the funding of so-called test cases or those with the potential to advance the common law. Legal aid cases have indeed led to the development of case law in the past, but that alone is not sufficient justification for legal aid to be granted in cases that do not have at least a 50% prospect of success. In addition, I do not think that our proposal will hinder or prevent the development of case law. The arguments are likely to be strong for such a development to be warranted.
Lord Beecham
At this hour of the night, I am quite prepared to accept any correction of the arithmetic. The Government, of course, are never prepared to accept a correction of their arithmetic.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and noble and learned Lords for their very generous welcome to me. It is a daunting position to find yourself in. I know that, despite the generosity of the welcome, there will be no lack of rigour in the examination to which I am put as a representative of the Government and I look forward to receiving the many useful contributions characterised by those today, which, I am likely to be advised, will be forthcoming in the next weeks and months.
This debate has ranged far and wide, perhaps rather further than the strict terms of the two Motions envisaged. For example, there have been general laments about the Government’s approach to legal aid from the noble Lord, Lord Bach. There has been reference by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, to the difficult interpretation of Section 2 of the Human Rights Act and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, to the need for high-quality judicial assistance. All these are important points, but I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not deal with all those points but try to concentrate more specifically on the issues that concern these regulations.
One of the main themes of the debate was the fear that the lack of legal aid for these borderline cases will result in some form of ossification of the common law—that it will not develop in the absence of legal aid for such borderline cases. It is worth remembering that the common law develops in a number of different ways, sometimes with cases which one would not expect to result in a change in the law. The Government believe that prospect of success—the test that is applied—remains a useful and sound test and that a 50% prospect of success is a reasonable one and should not result in cases not being brought and the law not developing.
Individual cases were mentioned, including Pinnock, Smith v Ministry of Defence, Purdy, Pretty and Anufrijeva, to name but a few, all of which were important cases. Of course, the Government are not in a position to comment on individual cases, or precisely on the funding arrangements that may have existed in those cases. There may be other cases which have not resulted in success or in the development of the law. The Government remain doubtful that the change which these regulations will bring about will prevent cases being brought in areas where the law will develop and has developed. One of the ways in which the law has developed is through the Human Rights Act, and it shows little sign of standing still in that regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, asked particularly about the impact on housing cases. I recognise the serious consequences that can ensue from housing cases—the potential for someone to lose their home. Indeed, there are all sorts of cases where there may be serious consequences. But there always has to be an assessment of the merits of a case—that has been well established in the granting of legal aid—and it has been a fundamental part of the scheme since its inception.
The noble Lord also questioned the accuracy of the savings which are put forward. The Government’s best estimate is £1 million. An impact assessment estimated that 100 fewer cases would be funded. As was made clear in the methodology, those were rounded figures. Further supporting data consisting of a breakdown by category of law have been included in the updated impact assessment published alongside the consultation response. While the estimate is based on 2011-12 data, I can assure the House that it is consistent with more recent data; that is, the data from 2012 and 2013. The noble Lord also made reference to the criticism of the regulation by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
The cases which may be included are those where there is a dispute over law or expert evidence. I mentioned that there may still be legal aid where it is as yet impossible to assess the prospect of success, but the Government have been frank that they consider it reasonable in principle that 50% should be the touchstone. We suggest to the House that it is a very reasonable and rather modest prospect of success when one bears in mind the sort of decisions that somebody paying privately might make in deciding whether to pursue litigation. Indeed, many would say that 50% was rather a modest prospect of success and very few privately paying citizens are much enthused or encouraged by the fact that their case raises an interesting point of law. They may well find that that is a less enticing prospect than the fact that they risk losing the case.
Several noble Lords made reference to the fact that there might be some form of inequality of arms because many of the cases were brought against government, either local government or government in one department or another. The Government’s position regarding litigation is that they take into account a broad range of factors when deciding whether to defend or appeal legal challenges, including the prospects of success and the potential costs versus benefits of that action. However, it would be simplistic to say that the Government simply took advantage, as it were, of their overall position in deciding their approach to litigation. It is already a principle of the current scheme that most cases, even those concerning issues of high importance, must have a reasonable prospect of success in order to warrant public funding, and there has to be an assessment of merits and a decision must be made.
Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2013
Lord Faulks Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulks
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 25 November 2013 be approved.
Relevant documents: 15th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 21st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 7th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to the regulations, and I commend the regulations to the House.
Amendment to the Motion
Criminal Defence Service (Very High Cost Cases) (Funding) Order 2013
Lord Faulks Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, along with others, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for tabling these Motions so that we can debate these important measures. I should make it clear that I have never practised at the English Bar and never sat in an English court. My experience has been of practice, both civil and criminal, north of the border. However, although I have never sat in an English court, I have sat in a United Kingdom court, have had some experience of dealing with criminal cases and think that I can speak with some authority in support of the points which have been made so effectively by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood.
A cut of 30% on fees previously set by the Government surely must be regarded in the present financial climate as severe. I appreciate, of course, that the Minister and those for whom he speaks in this House have very little room for manoeuvre, given the cuts that already have to be made across the entire department. However, it would help if the Minister in his reply were able to put these two measures into their overall context. As I understand it, we are dealing here with cases that take a very long time and provide the advocate with the benefit of continuity of employment throughout a long period. As has been pointed out, these are complex cases which require unusual amounts of work outside the court room and are, in comparison with rates elsewhere in the system, better paid. I could therefore perhaps understand it if the strategy behind these measures was to reduce the cost of legal aid at this level, so as to keep any reduction at the lower levels, with which we are not concerned this evening, to an absolute minimum—or even to preserve the existing position at the lower levels. After all, it is at the bottom of the scale that there is real hardship. One hears not infrequently that the costs of travel and other overheads exceed the amounts payable as fees to the advocate. If there is any margin over that, it is often very small. I would be grateful if the Minister would say whether this is what the Government have in mind, and give us an assurance that there is no question of cuts of this dimension being made elsewhere across the system. That would be some reassurance to those who are deeply concerned about what the Government have in mind in the overall planning.
I will direct my remarks to the amendment set out in regulation 3(5) of the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, as the provision which it seeks to insert affects the advocate’s freedom of contract. The standard terms already provide for their amendment within the terms of the contract. There is a contractual power to do this, but it is not entirely unqualified; this is not the place to debate how extensive that power is. However, when it comes to altering the terms for payment, I suggest that it is a question of degree. The stage may be reached when the amendment proposed, purportedly within the contract, is so great that it cannot be altered without the advocate’s agreement. In that situation, if agreement is not reached, the advocate would have a right to terminate the contract.
That leads me to consider what the effect would be if the amendment goes through. As I understand it, it would tie the advocate who agrees to this form of contract to the rates set out in Schedule 6. That being so, those rates can then be amended by a further order without the need for the advocate’s agreement. There is no need to alter the contract: what one does is to look at the schedule and alter the schedule by a further order. Once the advocate is tied in to such a contract, he or she has no escape from it, however much the reduction in the rates may be. As there is every prospect, if one is realistic, that the cuts now proposed will not be the last, the stage could be reached when the rates will become wholly uneconomic—indeed, some may say that this stage has already been reached. That amendment is a profoundly unattractive change in the existing arrangement. I do not understand why it is there and I suggest that the Government are taking a great risk by proceeding along these lines.
Members of the Bar, after all, are not civil servants. One of the strengths of the Bar, vital in our modern democratic society, is the independence of each one of its members from each other and from anyone else. That is an essential part of the system, which lies at the centre of maintaining the rule of law, which we all believe in. One of the characteristics of their independence is that advocates cannot be forced to accept terms to which they have not agreed or which they find unattractive. That leads directly to the consequences—to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, drew our attention —which could be very far reaching and very damaging. Those already engaged in work of this kind might be well advised to withdraw from their contracts, lest they be sucked into an ever increasing pattern of cuts. There are many who might be attracted to this kind of work in other circumstances who would not wish to subject themselves to the reformed contract where they are subject to change without any further amendment of the contract itself.
I therefore have this further question for the Minister: what assurance can he give to those who may be willing to accept employment on these amended terms as to what the future holds for them? This is very relevant to the issue of recruitment. Schedule 6, as I have suggested, is open to further amendment. Are we to expect further cuts in these rates next year or is it proposed to do so within the life of this Parliament? If so, what further opportunity will there be—indeed what opportunity will there be at all—for consultation before any further amendments are proposed? What opportunity will there be for an advocate to withdraw if he decides that the rates that are then proposed are so completely unattractive that he is not prepared to carry on with that work? These are questions that all those engaged in this kind of work would wish to be answered and I hope very much that the Minister will be able to do so.
Lastly, on the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, about jury trials, I come from Scotland where, as it happens, there is no right to a jury trial. It is up to the prosecutor to decide whether the offence should be tried by a judge alone in the sheriff court, with a sheriff and a jury, or in the High Court with a jury. The length of sentence is affected by that decision, but there is no reason why a case of very considerable complexity should not be tried before a single sheriff. The accused has no right to object to that. It raises the issue as to whether there is not considerable force in the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, that we are reaching the stage where a jury trial in some of these cases may need to be reconsidered.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Carlile has summarised the arguments against the statutory instruments with his usual clarity and vigour, and I do not wish to weary the House with repetition. I would, however, like to add a few words and in doing so should declare an interest as a practising barrister. I am not a barrister who does criminal cases and I very rarely do cases where legal aid is involved. However, I have sat until recently as a recorder in the Crown Court and am thus familiar with our criminal justice system.
I entirely understand the desire on the part of the Government to reduce spending on legal aid. The LASPO Act was the Government’s first move in reducing costs. There is no reason why lawyers should be in any way immune from austerity, nor should justice be recognised as some sort of special case, up to a point. Nevertheless, what troubled many noble Lords in scrutinising that Bill as it went through the House was the risk of real injustice not to lawyers but to those who encountered the system and would be at risk of being denied access to justice. The Minister reassured those of us who were anxious, particularly in relation to Part 1 of the LASPO Bill, as it then was, and made some important concessions. However, the impact of the Act is going to need careful watching to ensure that real injustices do not result.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Lord Faulks Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, has put forward an interesting amendment. The principle behind it, that Governments ought to report to Parliament regularly on the effectiveness of pieces of legislation, is one that I am sure that we would all wish to see more widely spread. However, I have a reservation about the terms in which the amendment has been put.
The noble Baroness said that she has reservations over whether criminalisation will have the desired effect. She implied, and I believe that all of your Lordships would agree, that criminalisation is not a panacea as far as this problem is concerned; it will not solve all the issues. Therefore, I would hope that if we were to receive a report to Parliament, it would look at not just the effectiveness of criminalisation but also at the effectiveness of the totality of policies on forced marriage.
My noble friend Lady Thornton moved an amendment earlier that would have broadened the scope of this and placed obligations on various public authorities in terms of the actions that they should take. I hope that the report requested by the noble Baroness would look not just at whether criminalisation makes a difference for good or ill, but also at whether all the other activities that the Government and public agencies undertake to try to eliminate forced marriage are effective. I think that that would be very valuable in terms of taking these matters forward.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, I have little to add to what my noble friend Lady Manzoor said so expertly in moving this amendment. As a member of the JCHR, this was one of the recommendations that we made in our report.
I very much endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said. I hope that the reporting to Parliament would not just be a dry recitation of the effect of criminalisation in terms of statistics, but would go wider. I am sure that the Minister will reassure us on that. This should not be simply a formality. We are stepping into an acutely sensitive area and, although we said that we approved cautiously of the decision to criminalise forced marriage, it is a matter that must be looked at very carefully for fear that more harm may come than good.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, support the noble Baroness in her amendment. I saw her nodding at the suggestion that any reporting back should be more comprehensive than simply reporting on the criminal aspects. There should be many other opportunities taken up by Government to press for the changes that underpin what the Government are seeking in criminalising forced marriage.
One factor that I would press upon the Government is that there should be greater discussion in families, for example about marrying close relatives, such as cousins. I used to chair the Human Genetics Commission and there was considerable sensitivity about this kind of discussion and about the implications of marriage within certain boundaries and how it perhaps increased risks for future generations. I think that when people are well informed that often changes social practices.
I also think that imams should be well informed about the ways in which the women in their congregation are disadvantaged by not having the cover of civil marriage so that they have rights that can be enforced in the courts. My clients have sometimes invoked Sharia law as being generous towards women at the ending of marriages or after death. Although that might have been the case in the past, nowadays women are more advantaged by what is available to them through the civil courts in the United Kingdom. I think that such pieces of information should be much more widely disseminated to communities where these issues arise.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I was quite right to wait for others to table the amendment before adding my name, so that they could all go first with the arguments. I tried to canter through them at Second Reading in considerable haste and will try to be quick now. I accept that the new clause is to do with compensation, not the criminal law, otherwise every overturned conviction would lead to a right to compensation and Section 133 makes it clear that that is not the case. However, what has been troubling me is that if you do not have to prove innocence at the original trial and then the matter turns on a new or a newly discovered fact, surely you would not have had to prove that. If the fact had been available at the time of the trial, this would not have changed whether you would have to have proved your innocence, which you did not have to do. I do not see that bringing in a new fact should change that at all. I do not see why that is necessary now.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, has said that this is about who should be entitled to compensation. The Government say that it is about clarity. They do not argue in any effective way that the amounts involved are such as to require a change in the law in order to save the taxpayer. The impact assessment on this clause says:
“The intended effect is to lessen the burden on taxpayers and reduce unnecessary and expensive legal challenges to Government decisions to refuse compensation”.
Those are two quite separate points. The lessening of the burden on taxpayers is very small, but legal challenges to government decisions are another matter. That goes to clarity and it seems to me—I am not nearly as well qualified as everyone else who has spoken—that the chain of cases we have has produced the clarity. The impact assessment says that we need the provisions to be unambiguous and decisions on eligibility to be more transparent. I should have thought that the cases have taken us to that point.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I fear that I do not share the view just expressed by my noble friend Lady Hamwee that the law is clear at the moment. The number of decisions, one following another, with disagreements between judges in the same tribunal indicates the difficulty of the question and, I conclude, the lack of clarity in the test that should be applied. One of the reasons for this provision is in order to provide clarity. That, I believe, it does. The second question is whether it is appropriate and whether it offends the presumption of innocence. I am part of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and originally I took the view that it did offend the presumption of innocence. I have changed my mind, having thought about it. Although I was not often able to persuade the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, of anything, he has contributed to persuading me, on the other hand, of the merits of the arguments he advanced, both at Second Reading and today.
I have also had the opportunity of reading the cases of Allen v the United Kingdom and KF v the United Kingdom and I agree with the noble and learned Lord that they do not in any way require the retention of the law in its current state, or that they offend the presumption of innocence—provided, it seems, that some judge, in declining to award compensation, does not make any comment to the effect that there is any doubt about someone’s innocence.
I also respectfully disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, that the point of these applications for compensation is to hold the state to account. The point of the applications is to obtain compensation, and the difficult question is that of who is entitled to it. It is not an easy question, but in my submission the Government have come to the correct answer. Sadly, a few people who are genuinely innocent will not obtain compensation, which in my view, for the reasons given, is an unsatisfactory element. However, it does not involve people being deprived of their liberty; it is simply a question of compensation.
Legal Aid
Lord Faulks Excerpts(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on securing this debate on these recent and very controversial proposals. I declare an interest as a barrister regulated by the board she chairs. Although barristers are not naturally enthusiastic about regulation, the Bar Standards Board has won increasing respect from practitioners. I wish that I could say the same about the LSB, the super-regulator.
On 3 December 2012, I spoke in another debate initiated by the noble Baroness about what can be described only as the overregulation of the legal profession. I am glad to say that the Government have now announced that they have embarked on a wholesale review of legal service regulations following concerns over their complexity and the unnecessary burdens that they place on the sector. That debate clearly had some effect, and I hope that what is said today in your Lordships’ House will similarly cause the Government to think carefully.
I also declare an interest as a barrister who, while not often paid by legal aid, has experience of the way that the system works, has acted with legal aid and has sat as a recorder in the Crown Court. When proposals are born out of a need to save money, there is a significant risk that cuts will be made in rather a crude way and that the legal system as a whole will suffer long-term damage. These proposals have met with extraordinarily widespread criticism, much of it admittedly from interested parties. However, it seems to me—and I may be alone here in believing this, or almost alone—that there is some good sense at the heart of what the Government suggest in the introduction of PCT. Indeed, in March 2010, the previous Government produced a Green Paper that said, in relation to the restructuring and the delivery of the criminal defence services, among other things:
“Currently the criminal defence service is highly fragmented, with a large number of small suppliers and relatively few large suppliers … We believe that these market trends are not sustainable. Therefore we believe a future tendering process would ensure a more consolidated market, with a smaller number of more efficient suppliers, required to undertake the full range of the services we need”.
I therefore expect that the party opposite will applaud at least the concept that these proposals contain for the restructuring of legal services.
It is of course important that any restructuring does not result in a degradation of the quality of justice or its availability. I, like the noble Baroness, welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that he will carry out a further consultation before finalising his plans. He has also said that he is looking again at the important question of choice of lawyer. I look forward to seeing precisely how he reflects this question of choice in any amended plans. I admit that I find it rather an elusive concept. Of course, it is desirable that anyone charged with an offence should be represented by lawyers in whom they have confidence. However, choice is unlikely to be an absolute matter. Indeed, I reject the suggestion that those charged with criminal offences are incapable of making informed choices. Some of them are quite experienced consumers. I can remember, on a couple of occasions when I was a young barrister, being introduced to a defendant by my instructing solicitor, to be met with the comment, “I do not want him”. That, I think, was an expression of freedom of choice in terms of representation.
Some of the personal attacks on the Lord Chancellor are highly regrettable. I also find the suggestion that lawyers in this area are overpaid and are, in effect, milking the system unfair and unsubstantiated. It is the habit of all Governments to publish rather misleading figures about earnings at the top end by practitioners in legal aid. These figures never tell the whole truth. The average earnings of a criminal practitioner are extremely modest. It is vital that we preserve the possibility of lawyers doing this important work. What is at stake is not just the standard of living of lawyers, which may be regarded by some as of secondary importance. It is much more important that we maintain the quality of justice for which this country rightly has an extremely high reputation.
Time does not permit me to examine the other proposals in detail. I can say, however, that the alarming increase in expenditure on legal aid by prisoners deserves careful examination. Some of this is explicable by the fallout from IPP sentences, abolished by this Government; I have considerable personal experience of the litigation arising from this. However, I understand that these cases, concerned with actual detention, will still receive legal aid. When it is for trivial disputes, I have some sympathy with the Government that they can properly be resolved by the alternative remedies. Similarly, judicial review, vital though the availability of this remedy is for constitutional reasons, does not mean that the availability of legal aid is not subject to some careful scrutiny. I found the evidence of the Lord Chancellor to the Justice Committee on this point persuasive.
I invite the Minister and others in the Ministry of Justice to look at the suggestions made by the Society of Conservative Lawyers for further savings in costs, which are not currently included in the proposals, in a recently published article on its website. I also ask the Government in due course to look at the inquiry that is to take place by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, which is looking at the human rights elements in these proposed changes. I do not think that these changes warrant the wholesale condemnation that they have attracted. I ask the Secretary of State to proceed with very considerable caution. He needs to have preferably the profession and certainly the public with him on these changes if they are to be successful and preserve our system of justice.
British Bill of Rights
Lord Faulks Excerpts(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill on securing this debate. I also congratulate him on his enormous contribution to the cause of human rights over the years. I should declare an interest as a member of the commission, though I came relatively late to the party, joining as a replacement for Michael Pinto-Duschinsky. On leaving the commission he expressed his views firmly and widely on where he thought the discussions had gone wrong. During my period at the commission there were certainly vigorous debates about a number of issues, as is apparent from the range of views expressed in the report. However, the process of arriving at our conclusions was a civilised one, made easier by the skilful chairmanship of Sir Leigh Lewis.
There was a majority view, as your Lordships have heard, in favour of the creation of a UK Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on our obligations under the European Convention. That was the answer to the question contained in our terms of reference when the commission was set up by the Deputy Prime Minister. However, it seemed to at least two of us that the commission had not been asked to consider the key issue: namely, how the United Kingdom should respond to the judicially activist approach taken by the European Court of Human Rights in its interpretation and application of the convention in the past 30 years—in particular, whether the United Kingdom should consider withdrawal from the court’s jurisdiction, or at least renegotiate our terms of membership.
Jonathan Fisher QC and I were responsible for a paper entitled Unfinished Business, which is incorporated in volume 1 of the commission’s report. It reflects our views and, I venture to think, the views of others outside the commission. I respectfully suggest that those views are not restricted to what my noble friend described as the “Tea Party” tendency in the Conservative Party. I will not repeat now what we said but will make a few observations that arise from the commission’s report.
In talking of human rights, it is easy to approach matters at a level of abstraction. However, what does a human rights case actually look like at domestic level? Here I must declare a further interest as a practising barrister who, since the enactment of the Human Rights Act, has devoted a considerable amount of time to defending public authorities against claims arising directly or indirectly from the Act. Fascinating though these cases have been, I have been far from convinced that most of them have very much, if anything, to do with what people would once have meant by the expression “human rights”.
The courts in this country have, for the most part, strained to follow Strasbourg case law and its often rather creative interpretation of the convention. Supporters of the Human Rights Act tend to extol the wording of the convention, which contains a perfectly acceptable summary of human rights. However, as Jack Straw, former Home Secretary and Secretary of State for Justice, said in the debate on prisoner voting,
“the problem is not the plain text of the convention, but the way in which it has been over-interpreted to extend the jurisdiction of the European Court ... the problem has arisen because of the judicial activism of the Court in Strasbourg, which is widening its role not only beyond anything anticipated in the founding treaties but beyond anything anticipated by the subsequent active consent of all the state parties, including the UK”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/2/11; cols. 501-02.]
In a way this was all very predictable. Lord Denning was a judge who was once highly regarded as a legal thinker. His judgments are cited much less often in the courts now. He wrote a great deal about the European convention. It was relied upon in courts before the Human Rights Act was enacted. He said in the case of Ahmed v Inner London Education Authority in 1978:
“The Convention is drafted in a style very different from the way we are used to in legislation. It contains wide general statements of principle. They are apt to lead to much difficulty in application; because they give rise to much uncertainty. They are not the sort of thing which we can easily digest. Article 8 is an example. It is so wide as to be incapable of practical application. So it is much better for us to stick to our own statutes and principles, and only look to the Convention for guidance in case of doubt”.
I suggest that there was much wisdom, indeed prescience, in what he said, albeit that his views are often dismissed as insular.
One aspect of the debate that has not sufficiently been emphasised is the extraordinary cost of human rights. Before I became a member of the commission, I asked a Written Question of the Minister as to whether the commission would be considering as part of its report questions of cost. The reply was that this was a matter for the commission. On arrival at the commission, it was apparent that the membership did not consider cost to be within its terms of reference. On 7 March 2013, I asked the Minister here in the Chamber to tell us whether the Government could give us any figures for how much human rights were costing us. His answer was that he could not do so. He described respect for human rights as being,
“a prize beyond cost”.—[Official Report, 7/3/13; col. 1614.]
All noble Lords value the protection of human rights, but, with great respect, that does not mean that the question of cost becomes a no-go area.
The LASPO Act made some widespread changes in the cost of litigation. Many were timely, in particular those that effectively implemented the Jackson reforms. I was somewhat less enthusiastic about the alterations to legal aid, which had the potential to deny representation to some with genuine claims and limited means. However, the Minister was reassuring as to the alternative and cheaper ways in which ordinary citizens could seek appropriate remedies. One exception to the cost-cutting exercise appeared to be cases involving the Human Rights Act. No figures were given to Parliament as to how much such cases were costing or would cost in the future. Were the Government concerned that denying legal aid to any claim involving the Human Rights Act would put them potentially in breach of Article 6 of the convention?
Claims involving the Human Rights Act continue, whether as claims for compensation or as the basis for judicial review. The sums awarded are often trivial. The cost, however, is not. The cost of the Abu Qatada litigation is said to be in excess of £1.7 million. It seems to be absolutely crucial that the Government should at least make some attempt to calculate what the HRA has cost in terms of legal fees generated by litigation. The cost does not end there. Public authorities have conscientiously attempted to ensure that their policies and practices are human rights-compliant. This is a very difficult exercise because it depends on trying to second-guess what view the Strasbourg Court, and thus our courts, will take of a particular situation. We need to know about these costs in an area that has much in common with our overreaction to the requirements of health and safety or even the Data Protection Act.
I have another substantial question for the Minister. I appreciate that he may have difficulty in answering some questions, in view of the well understood difference of opinion between the Liberal Democrat Party and Conservative Party in relation to the Human Rights Act, but I hope that he can answer this one. Do the Government agree that in leaving the ECHR, if that course were taken, we would also have to leave the European Union? This was the somewhat surprising view recently expressed by Judge Dean Spielmann, the president of the ECHR. My understanding of the position is that EU treaties do not provide that adherence to the European convention is a formal requirement of continued membership of the EU, even if membership may be regarded as a benchmark in terms of respect for human rights.
Such respect is something that unites us all, but if we were to leave the Strasbourg Court and indeed the Council of Europe, this respect for human rights would not diminish. Before the Act came into force, this country had a proud, albeit not unblemished, record for the protection of human rights through its domestic law. We are, of course, bound by a plethora of international obligations from which we would not be relieved were we to leave the Strasbourg court. Any noble Lords who wish to be reassured about our contribution to the protection of human rights and democracy all over the world should read the 2012 Foreign and Commonwealth Office report published in April this year. It is a remarkable tribute to the work of the FCO. If I highlight in particular its work in relation to sexual violence as a weapon of war, that does not in any way diminish the other aspects of its work.
The JCHR, of which I am a member, would still have important work to do even if the Act were to be repealed. The EHRC, set up pursuant to the Equality Act, would continue to have an important role. Above all, Parliament can legislate to protect human rights on a more targeted and nuanced basis, rather than having to perform somersaults to reflect actual or potential decisions made here or in Strasbourg.
The question is therefore not whether we should be protecting human rights but whether the Strasbourg court is the best or even the preferred method of defining or enforcing human rights standards. It is said by some that we would be a pariah state were we to cut our links with the Strasbourg court. The human rights records of some counties subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court suggest that membership is hardly a guarantee of the protection of human rights.
It is important not to demonise the Strasbourg court. It does not have the same regard for precedent, and the jurisprudence in this country, post human rights, can make difficult reading, as judges try to impose some sort of taxonomy—because of our courts’ respect for precedent—on a jurisprudence that lacks such respect. As my noble friend Lord Lester said, some of the decisions from Strasbourg have been profound and influential. However, if we were to leave the convention it would not mean that we would ignore such decisions any more than we would ignore influential decisions from elsewhere in the world.
My noble friend said that the European convention was the work of distinguished Conservative politicians and referred to Sir David Maxwell Fyfe as one of those responsible for its first draft. This is true but social historians, particularly having regard to his response to privacy and gay rights issues, tend to the view that it is most unlikely that he would have approved of the way the Human Rights Act developed and has been interpreted.
In conclusion, I remain passionately committed to the cause of human rights, but retain deep reservations about the Human Rights Act. Above all, I am concerned that human rights can get so easily lost in the law and the language of lawyers. Whereas law should be the servant of human rights, it has become their master.
Alternative Business Structures
Lord Faulks Excerpts(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
I do not think so. However, a lot of examples have sensibly been raised in the House today, some of them hearsay and some from direct experience, which suggest that what we intended to do in LASPO may not exactly be hitting the target, or that, as a result of organisational devices used by companies, the target has been moved. I can tell the House that we will talk to the regulators and look at some of these examples. If necessary, we will look at the powers that we were given under LASPO to make sure that we do what the House intended, which was to stop the practice of referral fees, particularly in the area of motor insurance.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, is the Minister regularly invited, as I am, to commit fraud, by which I mean that telephone calls are made by companies inviting one to sue for accidents that did not occur? Do the Government have any plans to deal with this, and are they aware that this is a frequent problem?
Lord McNally
I have not had direct experience of that particular problem, but within my family I have had direct experience of just how casually the law is treated in this area and how that has had a direct impact on the cost of motor insurance. Parliament tried to address part of this problem through the ban on referral fees, but there are many murky practices around this area and the House is right to raise these issues. I will return to the MoJ with the clear message ringing in my ears that we should poke a little further into these murky businesses.
Defamation Bill
Lord Faulks Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulks
My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with government Amendment 2B. Initially, I was very sympathetic to the idea of restricting a company’s right to sue because of the instances of bullying, which are now well known. I have become slightly more troubled by the restriction which is to be imposed in what I hope will not be impolite to call something of a volte-face by the Government in this respect. I understand the reasoning behind it but I seek from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, reassurance about what a company must establish to show that it has been, or is likely to be, caused serious financial loss.
In the well known case of Jameel v Wall Street Journal in 2007, the House of Lords considered, among others, the Derbyshire case. In particular, in his leading speech Lord Bingham said that he was satisfied that it was appropriate for a company not necessarily to prove special damage but to establish that a publication had the tendency to damage. I shall quote from paragraph 26 of his judgment:
“First, the good name of a company, as that of an individual, is a thing of value. A damaging libel may lower its standing in the eyes of the public and even its own staff, make people less ready to deal with it, less willing or less proud to work for it. If this were not so, corporations would not go to the lengths they do to protect and burnish their corporate images. I find nothing repugnant in the notion that this is a value which the law should protect”.
He went on to say:
“I do not accept that a publication, if truly damaging to a corporation’s commercial reputation, will result in provable financial loss, since the more prompt and public a company’s issue of proceedings, and the more diligent its pursuit of a claim, the less the chance that financial loss will actually accrue”.
What concerns me a little is that a company that has genuinely been damaged in its reputation will often find it very difficult to surmount this hurdle which is inserted in the Bill when it is not easy to produce by reference to a balance sheet an exact equivocation between the damage to a reputation and the damage to a company. It may be much more subtle than that, yet there is genuine damage to a reputation. Therefore, I would welcome some clarification from the Minister about what a company may need to establish short of producing a balance sheet, nevertheless having some evidence of real damage to the company.
There is a problem with the alternative tort of malicious falsehood in that the offer of a mens rea defence is not available. Of course, malicious falsehood requires proof of malice and is a somewhat unsatisfactory hurdle where a defamation action is, on the face of it, more suitable.
As to the amendment suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, concerning non-natural persons, I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Lester. I can add that the courts are currently considering a number of cases where they are patrolling the border, as it were, of the Derbyshire principle and deciding whether, on particular facts, the ratio decidendi of Derbyshire should be applied to a public role or public function having been performed by a particular body. I suggest that it is much better for the law to evolve, as the Minister said, rather than to codify it in this way. Of course, at the moment the courts are generally considering the question of public function in the context of the Human Rights Act and whether the obligations under the convention apply. There are many hybrid cases which are going to make these cases very fact-sensitive, and that is an indication that we should avoid trying to codify.
I strongly oppose Amendment 2D proposed in Motion B2. The initial requirement of seeking the permission of the court is going to add to costs. Largely thanks to the helpful intervention of the CPR—I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in his place—the courts have the flexibility to intervene on questions of meaning. They can strike out the whole or part of a case. In any event, I suggest that there is sufficient flexibility to make this initial hurdle supererogatory. It will be expensive and I fear that it will not in fact achieve what I understand lies behind this amendment, and so I strongly oppose that.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I shall talk briefly to Amendment 2B and, in so doing, I echo what has been said about my noble friend Lord McNally. I do not know about McNally’s Bill but I certainly knew a Bill McNally, who was one of the finest poachers in Suffolk.
I am not happy with Amendment 2C, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, but I have a lot of time for her Amendment 2D, supported by the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford. As was said by my noble friend, there seems to be considerable anxiety around the bullying of corporations, which seems to get worse as time goes by. Some of the largest and wickedest of them are some of the most brutal in the way that they will abuse the law to silence critics.
I want to raise with my noble friend Lord McNally a point on Amendment 2B because this is potentially a Pepper v Hart occasion, where he could say in the most trenchant terms that my concern is misplaced. The amendment enlarges on Clause 1 of the Bill, headed “Serious harm”. It says:
“For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit”.
I am not absolutely clear that the phrase,
“a body that trades for profit”,
is beyond ambiguity. I am thinking particularly of charities, some of which trade for profit in the mainstream of the work that they do—for example, some schools, some hospitals and gymnasia. There are many areas where charities carry on a trade, but it is a charitable trade and it is, in one obvious and simple sense, for profit because it generates the wherewithal enabling them to run their hospital or whatever it is. I could have chosen language, I think, that would put the meaning beyond doubt, but we have to live with the wording that is here. As I understand it, there is no further opportunity to change the phrasing of this part of Amendment 2B. So I hope that my noble friend Lord McNally will assure me that this wording is specifically designed to exclude from its ambit the work of charities. Otherwise, I think we have a very large problem with this amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
It was the word “bring”. What we are trying to say regarding permissions is that permission of the court should be required in order to bring that action. In a sense, the most effective speech about permissions was, of course, made not by me but by the noble Lord, Lord May of Oxford. He discussed the case of Wilmshurst, which involved four years, £300,000, a risk to patients and actually of course no serious case at the bottom of it, because what he said was true. That is what we are trying to get rid of.
To turn to the main issue of Derbyshire, in a sense this is quite a simple judgment. It is a judgment about whether the noble Lords, Lord Faulks, Lord Lester and Lord McNally, are right that we should leave it to the courts and to judges to decide on whether the Derbyshire principle should now apply to other organisations providing public services, or whether we as Parliament want to take that decision. My fear about leaving it to the courts is how on earth users—patients, Travellers, people who are receiving those public services, the disabled who go to Atos—are to know what their rights are if we have to wait for the court to develop the Derbyshire principles. How are parties going to know? Who will fund the test cases? What message does it give to users and patients, and indeed to journalists wanting to report their complaints, if they must wait to know what the outcome is?
Lord Faulks
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I understand her desire not to encourage unnecessary litigation, but perhaps she could help me and the House with this. Even under the amendment it will be necessary for a court to decide whether a non-natural person is performing a public function. That of itself may be the question of a judicial decision, so even her amendment is not going to preclude any involvement of the judges.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
It is interesting, but performance of public function will be under either a contract or a commission given out by the DWP or the local authority. They will be able to define that, because they do not simply stand up and say, “I am now providing a hospital”. A contract will exist with what used to be a PCT and is now a GP commissioning group. There will be a contract and it can be defined in that way. If that was the only problem and the Government wanted to concede other than on that, I would happily take that. No, the offer is not coming. I would like to conclude, if possible—
European Convention on Human Rights
Lord Faulks Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
My Lords, I think that “dilute” is the wrong word. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, pointed out in his interview the other day, the relationship between our Supreme Court and the Strasbourg court is a healthy one of learning from each other and looking at each other’s jurisprudence as it develops. What we have been doing, and one of the proudest things I have been involved in as a Minister, was the Brighton conference on the workings of the court which looked at how we can build in a subsidiarity to take notice of the importance of national supreme courts while still retaining the strength and the moral authority of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, whether human rights are best protected by the Supreme Court, by Parliament or by Strasbourg, all noble Lords are anxious to protect them. However, even human rights have a cost. Public authorities are spending a great deal of money trying to make their policies compliant with the convention—rather like with health and safety—when the Strasbourg jurisprudence is extremely uncertain. The diminishing pot of legal aid is being spent on often unmeritorious cases about human rights, rather than on far more meritorious cases. I was one of the commissioners, and we were not allowed to consider questions of cost. I ask the Minister whether the Government, in the whole human rights debate, could tell us how much human rights is costing.
Lord McNally
I am not able to put a cost to human rights any more than to anything else. I see in government—and I suppose that we have a lot of experience of local government in this House—how agents of the state, as the noble Lord said, when making decisions have in the back of their mind that they have to clear certain hurdles about respect for the individual citizen. To me, this is a prize beyond cost.
Defamation Bill
Lord Faulks Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Boothroyd
My Lords, I spoke in the debate on the Leveson report, so I shall certainly not weary the House this afternoon. Let me start by saying that I take no pleasure in what has befallen the newspaper industry in the past few years. I am sure that no one wants to see journalists facing criminal charges, but who among us is proud of the way in which newspapers are now perceived? I believe that the amendments before us would help the newspaper industry to re-establish itself as that trusted investigator it once was, bringing the news to the nation fearlessly and accurately and holding us all to account.
I said in my speech during the Leveson debate that many of the transgressions happened because of the culture of some newspapers whereby they grew to believe that they were untouchable. It is that culture that must be changed. It can be done with the establishment of a new complaints procedure for the public which, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, touched on, allows problems and issues with the press to be nipped in the bud at an early stage and dealt with.
We need a system that allows the citizen to raise their complaint in a low-cost and non-adversarial way. Newspapers must be required to meet and hear those with appropriate complaints against them. A robust arbitration service will, I am sure, help to change the culture of newspaper reporting and improve on the current mentality that everything and everyone is fair game for them.
This Government and all previous Governments over the past 60 years should have taken action and never did. Yet after seven royal commissions or parliamentary inquiries and the spending of a lot of public money, it will no longer suffice to be told that there will be an announcement “tomorrow”. It reminds me of the very famous line in “Gone with the Wind”: “Tomorrow is another day”. We have run out of tomorrows— tomorrow never comes.
It is today that we have to deal with, and it is today that your Lordships must take action. This House must step forward and help our leaders to take the action that they themselves have found difficult. Passing these amendments now does not prevent the Government improving on them should they choose to do so—as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said, they are a sort of building block—but the amendments say quite clearly that time has run out and we must take action this very day. I hope that the House will support them.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, for those of us who were involved in the Committee stage of the Defamation Bill, this is a surprising and exciting development on what might have been regarded as some of the more dry amendments that were then before the House. However, it is important—I declare an interest as a practising barrister with some experience of the law of defamation—that we bear in mind that this is an amendment to the Defamation Bill. It should not be thought that all claims by those who say they have been defamed result in full-scale trials. Thanks largely to the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the Civil Procedure Rules, and to initiatives by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, by way of protocols, much has been done to improve the way defamation actions are heard.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, I, too, want to add a sentence of support to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said.
I am patron of many charities and it would not be right if we did not strike the right balance. If a charity felt it was defamed because it was a body corporate, the restriction that has been put in here requiring the permission of the court is necessary. We are living in a very litigious society so if you are going to go to court to sue anybody, the permission of the court should be shown.
In proposed new subsection (3) there is the question of finance and the possibility of striking out if you cannot actually show that you have suffered loss. Because of that balance—that common sense that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, was talking about—I am very attracted to this, and I hope that the Government will accept both limbs of the amendment, because you really could not do one without the other. It strikes a balance. For such a very long time, individuals could sue but reputational damage, as well as financial loss, is often incurred by a number of charities and it would be good to be able to do the same thing in terms of bodies corporate.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, of course, there is in the Bill a significant hurdle for any claimant, whether a non-natural person or a natural person: they have to show serious harm, so that is a hurdle of itself.
I supported the general tenor of this amendment in Committee but expressed a reservation at that time. Indeed, the Joint Committee on Human Rights expressed a similar reservation, which is: what about the small companies? Of course, I accept that the individual can sue if he or she is sufficiently identified, but if it is a small business—say, the local ice cream vendor; maybe nobody knows them by name but they have a valuable local business reputation—it will have to overcome considerable hurdles before suing. It will have to show substantial financial loss; it may not be very substantial objectively but it may be very substantial to that business. The hurdle of serious harm added to this procedure seems to prevent it recovering in circumstances where it should be able to recover.
Malicious falsehood may be difficult to prove, in the sense that malice is always difficult to establish. None the less, if I say that Hayter & Co. is going out of business, when it plainly is not, it is not difficult to infer malice from that pronouncement. It would be unfortunate if companies had to resort to the alternative tort in circumstances where they should, in my view, be able to rely on ordinary defamation.
My final observation relates to proposed new subsection (4). I accept what my noble friend Lord Lester said about the public function. Deciding whether somebody performs a public function is not necessarily very easy, just as deciding whether something is a public authority for the purposes of the Human Rights Act has caused the courts considerable distress.
I have sympathy with the general tenor of this amendment but I cannot go all the way with it.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. As has been pointed out, Amendment 2 concerns two distinct but related issues. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Lester, who I greatly respect with regard to this Bill in particular, described it as two limbs. That is a nice way of reflecting on the current Government, in having two arms to the same body, and we are seeking to move forward on these matters.
The issues that have been raised again this afternoon were extensively debated during the previous stages of this Bill. These are whether there should be restrictions on the right of bodies corporate and other non-natural persons to bring an action in defamation, and whether any non-natural person which is performing a public function should be prevented from bringing a claim in relation to a statement concerning that function.
In relation to the first issue, the Government have made it clear in previous debates that there is a difficult balance to be struck, as the most reverend Primate articulated. Considerable damage can be done to the reputation of a business by unjustified and defamatory allegations, and this has an impact on all those involved with the business, including its shareholders and employees. On the other hand, we fully recognise the need to ensure that powerful businesses are not able to—for want of a better term—bully individuals or organisations with limited means into remaining silent on issues of public importance by the threat of libel proceedings.
However, if that is the problem we are trying to solve, imposing specific restrictions on the ability of businesses to sue does not seem justified. Wealthy individuals can equally send threatening letters to those with limited means. This is why we think the twin-track approach we are proposing is preferable. It embraces both elements within the Bill and procedural changes alongside it.
First, all claimants—corporate or otherwise—will have to satisfy the new test of serious harm, as my noble friend just mentioned. As we have made clear, it is our intention that the serious harm test will raise the hurdle for bringing a claim and will ensure that trivial claims do not proceed. In order to satisfy the serious harm test, businesses are likely in practice to have to show some form of actual or likely financial loss. The courts have talked in terms of,
“a tendency to directly affect its credit or property or cause it pecuniary damage”.
Quite what that will require will depend on the type of business concerned and the facts of the particular case, and we do not think that it is helpful to attempt to define explicit restrictions in the Bill.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I cannot support the amendment. One of the difficult things about having a Bill like this is to decide what Parliament should be doing and what the courts should be doing. Parliament has put into Clause 1 this very important barrier of serious harm. In his important reply to the previous debate, the Minister helpfully indicated that serious harm—for example, with a corporate body—would include the likelihood of serious financial loss as one of the factors to take into account. Obviously this is a preliminary hurdle, and obviously the procedure rules, which are not in the Bill but will be in the Civil Procedure Rules, and case management will ensure that a party can come before the judge at the beginning and say, “Strike this out because the serious harm test is not satisfied”.
My first reason for not supporting this is that it deals with matters of procedure that will be dealt with, I think, by the Civil Procedure Rules themselves, a pre-action protocol and case management. The second reason is that the factors that are listed here,
“caused or is likely to cause serious harm … and … a real and substantial tort in the jurisdiction”,
are exactly the kinds of issues that one would expect the judge to have regard to, but the Government have very wisely decided to move against having a checklist—for example, in Clause 4. I think that our judges can be well trusted to be able to apply the serious harm test in Clause 1 without a checklist and without being fettered in any way.
I sympathise with the aim of the amendment, but it is an example of overreach. We should not be writing this kind of procedural detail into the Bill; we should leave it to the wise discretion of the judiciary.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Lester. It is possible that the House may remember the contribution that I made to the first debate when I drew the House’s attention to the protocol, which does very much what the amendment seeks to do. Under the current law it is perfectly possible, and indeed it happens on a regular basis, that a court will rule on a preliminary basis and will strike out claims, either pursuant to the CPR or under the inherent jurisdiction. They will manage the case so that preliminary matters are heard—for example, an issue as to meaning—without a full-scale trial. Judges and masters are experienced in dealing with this, and that is a matter that should be left to the protocol and to the masters to develop as a matter of practice. With respect, it is not a matter that should be put in the Bill.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I support what the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Faulks, have said. I have to admit to having been a judge, but not a judge who tried this sort of case. I believe that this is a matter that should be left to the judiciary, and the amendment is overemphasising something that really does not need to be done.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, the law has been struggling for a little while now, both here and across the world, in trying to find the correct solution to the question of whether, and the extent to which, website operators should be liable for defamation. At the moment, there is no bespoke provision dealing with website operators.
Section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 was passed to deal with the position of wholesalers, booksellers, newsagents and libraries. It provides a possible defence for website operators, but this defence failed in the case of Godfrey v Demon in 2001 when a website operator did not remove the posting immediately upon being aware of its defamatory content. There is also a potential answer provided by the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002, but there is doubt about the level of protection this provides for so-called hosting. There is equally considerable doubt as to what does or does not constitute publication. Therefore, I congratulate the Government on not simply ducking the issue but seeking to address specifically the position of the operators of websites in the Bill.
I also generally applaud the Bill for the reasons that have been given in the course of debates. However, I am concerned that in the provisions of Clause 5 it is too generous to website operators. There is no doubt in my mind that these provisions are the most significant in the Bill. As we were reminded in Committee, nowadays the internet is the main form of communication used by people under a certain age. Even e-mails are something of a thing of the past. So that we can be confident that what we provide by this clause is going to be central in relation to defamatory communications in future, it is particularly important that we get this right.
The terms of Clause 5 leave much to regulations. I would not relish the role of parliamentary draughtsmen in trying to come up with appropriate regulations. It is almost certain that whatever emerges will be out of date almost immediately because of the fast-moving nature of this form of communication. The Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House, in paragraph 15 of its report on the Defamation Bill, was wise when it said:
“We consider that, as a matter of constitutional principle, the relevant provision should be to the greatest extent possible on the face of the Bill, so allowing full legislative amendment and debate. Moreover, only by seeing the proposed obligations to be imposed on operators will Parliament be able to consider whether the regime proposed is fit for purpose”.
That is why our amendment leaves much to the judge, so as to prevent obsolescence in the law.
The amendment attempts to provide a special defence to website operators, acknowledging the vulnerable position that they may be in but none the less specifically echoing the legislative language of the 1996 Act, placing the burden upon the defendant to show that he, the website operator, exercised reasonable care. What worries me about the current drafting is that the burden is very much on the claimant to surmount a series of hurdles before he can overcome the prima facie defence provided to the operator of a website. This seems to me to be getting the balance wrong and places the website operator in a unique position in the law of defamation.
When the Law Commission in 2002 examined the law of defamation on the internet, it came up with various recommendations, including amending the 1996 Act which is effectively what this amendment does. It also recommended that the industry should adopt a code of practice. My noble friend Lord Phillips and I think that is critical, and it is unfortunate that no such code of practice has emerged. As our amendment is framed, it would place a considerable onus on website operators in general to arrive at a code of practice which, if sensible and reasonable and followed in an individual case, would provide a solid defence to claims in defamation.
There is I think consensus that we should be trying to keep defamation claims out of court, if at all possible. The position after this Bill becomes law means only a well funded claimant with a serious complaint can even dream of bringing proceedings. In respect of that rather small risk, it is clear that website operators can take out insurance in respect of which only modest premiums would be payable. That seems to me a small price to pay for the protection of those who are genuinely aggrieved at defamatory content being posted on a website. In Grand Committee I gave the example of a teacher being accused of being a paedophile—almost certainly fatal to their career and their life.
Nobody should under-estimate the power exercised by website operators. I was a member of the Joint Committee subjecting the Data Communications Bill to prelegislative scrutiny last year, and we heard a great deal of evidence from website operators. It was impressive in terms of the quality, and no doubt expense, of those assigned to advance their position. They did not want to have to store any information which was not commercially useful to them even if it helped government agencies to track down and prosecute criminals. Much was made of their users’ rights to privacy. This is something of an irony since the information that users of websites provide is of course extremely valuable commercially. Website operators now say that it is very inconvenient to take down potentially defamatory material and that it compromises free speech. It is perhaps a little easy to deploy free speech in this context, but let us not get too misty eyed about this in the light of the careless and often ill thought out comments that find themselves on websites.
I fear that this clause as currently framed favours the powerful—namely, the website operators—who have a strong lobby, as opposed to the much less powerful, who might be defamed in the future. Our amendment does something to try and redress the balance. On considering the respective positions of the very powerful and the almost powerless, I know which side I am on.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
My Lords, I have the misfortune to be opposed to the amendment, and I shall try very briefly to explain why this is so. As I said in Grand Committee, there is across the world a fundamental difference between on the one hand the Chinese and, on the other, the United States. The Chinese position on the world wide web is to create the great firewall of China and the Chinese intranet and to do whatever it can to be able to censor the use of the web by dissidents of one kind or another. The position of the United States, ever since Bill Clinton’s statute, gives an absolute immunity to United States internet service providers. The European compromise is contained in the e-commerce directive, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, indicated, and seeks to strike a fair balance between freedom of speech and personal privacy and reputation in the structure of the regulations. Although it is vague, it is fairly balanced.
The world wide web is, on the one hand, of vast benefit not only to website operators but to the public and the citizens of the world in terms of free expression, which it enhances. On the other hand, the web creates much more capacity to damage reputation and personal privacy. That is the other side of the story. The puzzle is, given that this is a transnational, worldwide problem, what can any one country do to try to strike a fair balance? How can we devise a system that will encourage operators such as Google and Yahoo in this respect, given that they have no particular commercial interest in keeping up anything they post which is controversial? For example, if they post criticisms of Ruritania as a corrupt, disgraceful and oppressive Government, and then a threat is made to them to take it down, they have no commercial interest in keeping it up, even though we as citizens have every interest in their doing so. That is the free speech side of the argument.
I perfectly agree that one must do what one can to provide effective remedies in privacy and defamation claims. I admire the boldness of this amendment, which seeks to take out of the Bill altogether subsections (1) to (5) of Clause 5—that is, the entire carefully formulated procedure, including, in subsection (5), the regulations and what they may provide—and to put in place instead a structure which it is suggested will tip the balance better in favour of the claimant. I will not take the time of the House in going through that except to say that the more I read the burdens that the amendment would place on the operator, the more unbalanced I think they are in what they seek to do.
Furthermore, words such as “reasonable care”, with the burden being on the operator, or,
“did not know and had no reason to believe”,
comprise burdensome tests. I fully realise why my noble friends think that that wording is better than what is in the Bill. However, I do not think that it is. I think that it would give rise to litigation and would unduly fetter freedom of expression not for the website operators—I do not mind about them—but for us, the people who receive information and ideas on the web.
I like what the Government have done which I think strikes a perfectly fair balance. It is a good scheme. I am glad that they will introduce regulations. I very much hope that they will not accept this amendment.