Defamation Bill
Lord Lloyd of Berwick Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Could the noble Lord just inform me, although I am sure I ought to know this: is Fox’s Libel Act still on the statute book?
Defamation Bill
Lord Lloyd of Berwick Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, Amendment 11 seeks to amend the second condition of the defence to libel of honest opinion. This requires that the statement complained of “indicated” in general or specific terms the background to the supposedly defamatory statement. The importance of that is very evident and I acknowledge that this clause is largely codificatory of existing law.
My concern is simple, as the amendment indicates. There needs to be a qualifying adjective before “indicated”. I do not believe that left on its own it necessarily carries any qualification as to adequacy or sufficiency of the indication given about the basis of the opinion that is supposedly defamatory. I am reinforced in my sense that we need the qualificatory adjective by reference to other parts of this short Bill. For example, Clause 4(3) refers to “accurate and impartial”. Clause 6 refers to “fair and accurate”. Indeed, there are multitudinous references to that phrase in Clause 7. On its own, “indicated” is a rather bleak word which needs the qualification of “adequately” to do justice to the parties.
Amendment 12 again is designed to provide a more satisfactory outcome in terms of this clause, “Honest opinion”. Clause 3(6) states that a person sued for a libellous statement does not lose his or her defence if that person was not “the author” of the libel but only a secondary publisher and that they published the original statement. My amendment would extend that protection to a situation where the publisher does not simply republish the original statement but publishes it,
“in a form which is substantially the same”.
Again, this qualification is necessary.
Clause 8 deals with the statute of limitations and how to assess when a publication shall run from in terms of the limitation. Clause 8(1)(b) refers to a publication that,
“subsequently publishes (whether or not to the public) that statement or a statement which is substantially the same”.
My amendment seeks to introduce the qualification of a statement which is “substantially the same”. As worded, under Clause 3, the defence would be lost unless it was a statement precisely the same as the original statement.
The Minister may tell the Committee that the Government believe that the provisions in Clause 8 under the single publication rule should be read into Clause 3. If that is what he says, I find it difficult to reach that construction given the way in which Clause 8 is worded, with no reference to Clause 3 and vice versa. I hope that whatever the noble Lord, Lord McNally, says on Report, we can make this clear on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Amendment 13, in my name, has been grouped with this amendment, but it raises a separate point. It is concerned with the defence of honest opinion or fair comment, as it used to be called. In 1975, the Faulks committee described fair comment as the bulwark of free speech and so, indeed, it is. A few years earlier, that great defender of free speech, Lord Denning, had made exactly the same point, adding that fair comment as a defence must not be whittled down by legal refinement.
My case will be that the defence of fair comment has been whittled down not, I hasten to add, by Clause 3 of the Bill, but by a decision of the House of Lords in 1992. The name of that case was Telnikoff v Matusevitch and I must declare an interest, since I gave the leading judgment in the Court of Appeal in that case, together with Lord Justice Glidewell and Lord Justice Woolf, as he then was. We were, unfortunately, reversed in the House of Lords, so I have a rather selfish interest in satisfying myself and, I hope, persuading the Committee that the Court of Appeal was right and the House of Lords was wrong.
The facts of the case were very simple and typical. The plaintiff wrote an article, published in the Daily Telegraph, criticising the BBC’s Russian service for recruiting its staff entirely “from Russian-speaking ethnic minorities”. The defendant, an emigré Russian Jew, took great exception to the article and, five days later, wrote a letter to the Daily Telegraph referring to the article by title and giving the date on which it had appeared. The letter contained the following sentence:
“Mr Telnikoff demands that [the BBC] should switch from professional testing to a blood test”.
As it stands, that statement looks, on the face of it, like a statement of fact: that that is what he had demanded. If so it was clearly defamatory, if untrue. However, if you look at the same sentence in its context, including the article to which the letter had referred, it looks very different. It was obvious, looking at the article, that the plaintiff had not demanded a blood test, so the words complained of were not a statement of fact at all but a comment. It was a strongly worded comment, but a comment none the less.
The crucial question on which the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords differed was whether you could look at the article as part of the context in which the letter was written. In the Court of Appeal we held, without much difficulty, that you could and should. Accordingly, we upheld the defence of fair comment in the interest of free speech and the action failed.
The case went to the House of Lords and there we were reversed. The only reason that their Lordships gave was that somebody might read the letter without having read the article. To such a reader, the letter would indeed appear defamatory, even though it would not appear defamatory to anyone who had read both the letter and the article. Therefore it followed that the writer of such a letter, if he was going to take a safe course, should set out the whole of the article, or the substance of the article, on which he proposed to comment—or, if he was even more determined to take a safe course, should consult a lawyer.
It seemed to me at the time that the decision was wrong. It did exactly what Lord Denning said one should not do: namely, whittle down the defence of fair comment by a legal refinement. Even so, I might not have been bold enough to table my amendment but for one other factor: the dissenting speech of Lord Ackner in the House of Lords. If ever there was a tour de force, this was it. I should like to quote the whole speech—I had the whole speech before me on Monday of this week—but perhaps I should confine myself to the two sentences that contain the answer. Lord Ackner said that,
“the defence of fair comment is not based on the proposition that every person who reads a criticism should be in a position to judge for himself. It would be absurd to suggest that a critic may not say what he thinks of a play performed only once, because the public cannot go and see it to judge for themselves”.
There could not be a stronger support for the amendment than the speech of Lord Ackner in the House of Lords in that case.
It is true that Lord Ackner was only one of five Law Lords—but five judges in all were in favour of the amendment, if one includes Mr Justice Drake, a great expert in this field, together with the three of us in the Court of Appeal. That makes five in favour of the amendment, with only four against. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will find time during the Christmas vacation to read the judgment of Lord Ackner. He may well have time on his hands from now on. At Second Reading, the Minister went as far as to say that he thought that the view of Lord Ackner was probably right. I hope that he is still of that view and will maintain it when he has read Lord Ackner’s speech.
This brings me to the question that I asked at the end of my speech: is the wording of Clause 3(3) sufficiently clear and specific to enable the court to say—and in particular, to enable textbooks to say—that the decision of the House of Lords in Telnikoff v Matusevitch is no longer good law? The noble Lord said that his officials wished to consider the question and would write, but unfortunately they never did. If they had, I feel sure that we could have agreed. My view is that Clause 3(3) is not sufficiently precise. If Parliament is going to reverse an important decision of the House of Lords—and it was an important decision—in the field of defamation, as I hope we will, we must make it absolutely clear that that is what we are doing in the Bill. That is the only purpose of my amendment. The point would then be picked up by the textbooks—this is an important argument—so that we will not have to wait until a decision of the court, which would only add to the waste of time and money involved. We can do this now, and I hope that the noble Lord will agree to do so and accept the amendment. It will in no way detract from Clause 3(3), but it will cover a specific case, as we often do. I can think of literally no good reason why the Government should not accept the amendment now. I hope that the Opposition will take the same view.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I note with great interest that everyone referred to my noble friend Lord McNally, but it falls upon me at least to attempt to address some of the issues raised. I am mindful also of the fact that some holiday reading was put forward, and I now realise why my noble friend suggested that I deal with these amendments—I will be travelling to Australia and, rather erroneously, I asked him to suggest some reading for my long trip. Now I know what it will be.
I should like to respond to the various amendments in the group, Amendments 11, 11A, 12 and 13. Amendments 11 and 13 relate to Clause 3(3). The subsection reflects the test that has been approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Spiller v Joseph. This provision has been included to address the concern of the Joint Committee on the draft Bill that unless an indication of the subject matter on which the opinion is based is included it is difficult to assess the real nature of the criticism that has been made.
Including the word “adequately”, as proposed by Amendment 11 in the name of my noble friend Lord Phillips, would make no difference to how the provision would operate in practice. In order to succeed in establishing the defence, or indeed any other defence, the defendant will have to show that all the conditions attached to the defence are adequately met. If the way in which they are met is not adequate, it will be inadequate and by definition will fail. We therefore do not consider that this amendment is necessary at this time.
My noble friend also referred to Clause 8, which deals with a different situation, where the material is republished by the same publisher. Clause 3(6), however, deals with situations where the defendant is not the author of the statement—that is, where the newspaper editor publishes a comment piece written by someone else.
I move on to Amendment 13, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. It is true that this issue was flagged up at Second Reading. He referred to the specific assurance that he suggested was given, whereby a detailed letter was to be sent to him. If that has been overlooked, I am sure that the officials and my noble friend have noted that, and we will write to him quite specifically.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Regretfully noting such a thing is not enough. I was promised a reply and it did not come. Something more than noting is required.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I thank the noble and learned Lord for his suggestion, but if I had been able to finish my sentence, I was going to say that I apologise regarding the commitment made and, as I said, we will be writing to him quite specifically on the issue that he has raised.
I turn to the matters that the noble and learned Lord raised. Amendment 13 provides for this condition to be met if, in commenting on a letter or article in a newspaper, the defendant identifies the subject matter of the letter or article and the date on which it appeared. This situation is already covered by subsection (3). If the statement indicates that the basis for the opinion is what was said in a particular letter or article that has previously been published, then that would enable the claimant to read the letter or article and assess the nature of the criticism, and the test would thereby be met.
The noble and learned Lord referred to a particular case. I am mindful of the great expertise not just around the table but in the array of judicial expertise engaged in the particular case to which he referred and in which he was involved, as he pointed out. I would hesitate at this point to express a view on the rights and wrongs, but what I can say is that Clause 3(3) reflects the test that was subsequently approved by the Supreme Court in Spiller v Joseph, and that covers the circumstances that are set out in the noble and learned Lord’s amendment.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I thank my noble friend for his questions. I can give him an assurance that we will write to him on the specific points that he raised. That will allow for a proper period of reflection.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his support for this amendment, and indeed to other Members of the Committee, some of whom have spoken with particular knowledge of this aspect of the law. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, was concerned about the language of the amendment, and of course I accept that the wording could be improved. It may be that it is in fact too narrow in the sense that it refers only to newspapers and not to other places where articles might be published. It is the sort of thing that can be dealt with very easily if only one could have some sort of conversation on these matters with Ministers.
The noble Lord also said that it might be dealt with sufficiently with a statement under Pepper v Hart. There I think I would disagree with him. The point in Telnikoff v Matusevitch is so important in the law of defamation that it ought to be dealt with specifically so that it is on the face of the Bill, not just through a statement from the Minister. Nevertheless, I am grateful for his support.
As to the reply, of course I accept the apology offered by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad. However, these things should not happen and it is not the first time it has happened, even to me. One is told that one is going to be written to, but then one is not, so it is important that when the Government say that they are going to write, they should in fact do so. There is simply no purpose in raising points at Second Reading unless they can be dealt with properly at the Committee stage. In this case, of course, that has not been possible.
There were two questions for the Government to consider. First, do they accept that the decision of the House of Lords was erroneous? They have not dealt with that at all. Secondly, if it was erroneous, is that point made sufficiently clear in Clause 3 as it stands? On that I very much echo the statement of the noble Earl on the other side of the table. My view is that it is not sufficiently clear and I can see no reason why it should not be made sufficiently clear. It does not cost the Government anything to accept an amendment of this kind. Although I necessarily will not press the amendment, I intend to raise the matter at the next stage.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, to be frank with my noble friend, I do not feel that his response to Amendments 11 and 12 really addressed the case I was making. However, I do not propose to say anything further today. I will reread what he said; I hope he will reread what I have said; and I hope that there may be discussions before Report, when I can perhaps convince him otherwise.
Lord Triesman
My Lords, I am very grateful for the intervention because it will cut out my saying a great deal more. However, it would be helpful, in the same spirit as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, intended when he said greater enunciation might be sensible, for the legislation that we are looking at to somehow indicate what that distinction is, so that somebody who does not study law as a matter of practice can pick it up, read it and understand exactly what is meant by it. I am very grateful for the intervention because that is precisely the point that I wanted to make.
Finally, I will say something about the list that is about to be removed. It goes back to the point that I was trying to make about Parliament and the Government giving at least some indication of the things that might concern them. I was intrigued by—and at one stage convinced of the importance of having in subsections (2)(d) and (2)(e)—the words that appear there. Even if the words do not finally appear in the Bill, it should be understood, under subsection (2)(e), that when somebody publishes information, the reliability of the information is capable of being subjected to some real test. I do not know whether that is another point that the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, may have in part answered. However, what seems to be true is that there are often few demonstrations of the sanity or motives of those who have provided information that simply gets reproduced and, on occasions, is not withdrawn. I say to my noble friend Lady Bakewell and to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, that not every journalist uses the standards that I am pleased to acknowledge that they plainly do. Not every journalist does that by a long chalk.
In those cases, knowing about the credibility of the information seems important. It is something that one would want Parliament to have expressed, even if it does not appear as a list in the Bill. Equally, in subsection (2)(f), although I am conscious that bad experiences should not be promoted into the making of law, it seems important that people about whom things are to be written should have at least some knowledge of them or some opportunity to say something about them before the event happens. If those were the ways in which interpretation of the law by judges were achieved, that would amount to great progress here. I conclude by stating that if judges do that, and if lawyers put arguments to the judges, my anxiety—which I guess I will just have to live with—is that we will not be talking about a cottage industry but rather a major multinational for the time being.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
To correct the record, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred to Sir Brian Neill and the huge contribution that he made to this part of the law, but he did say that he was in hospital. I am happy to tell the Committee that he is now back home and will no doubt be following this debate with the greatest interest, either in Hansard or possibly—he is sufficiently technically minded—on television.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, my noble friend in his speech, and my other noble friend subsequently, convinced me that my Amendment 16A was misguided, so I shall not pursue it. However, I will ask my noble friend how he thinks his Amendment 14, and in particular the words “reasonably believed”, will apply to Twitter. It is a common function of Twitter that one passes on interesting news, sometimes with an added comment of one’s own, attributing it to a source generally rather than appropriating it for oneself. Would one be expected, under this amendment, to pursue inquiries as to whether one believed the source, or the particular information; or will it be sufficient to reasonably believe that the place you got it from is likely to be reliable?
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Lord Lloyd of Berwick Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, if your Lordships can bear a third lawyer in a row, I, too, would like to express my support for the amendment. I regret that I was not able to be present at Report stage, but if I had been I should certainly have spoken in favour of the amendment.
The Government’s fundamental concern, as described on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, is that there should be “proper lines of accountability”—a quotation already referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Phillips. My noble and learned friend and my noble friend have already dealt with that argument effectively, so I shall say no more about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, also said that he would not revisit the arguments that had been raised historically. It is here that I want to add just a few words, because I was more directly concerned with the terms on which the 2005 Act was passed than either my noble friend or my noble and learned friend. The main argument in favour of setting up the Supreme Court was of course the presence of the Law Lords in this place, which was said to be contrary to the principle of the separation of powers. I never accepted that argument. It seemed to me then, as it seems to me now, that the Law Lords were as independent of the Executive as the members of the Supreme Court are now—neither more nor less.
Whatever the theory of the separation of powers, the reality was that the separation was complete. The back-up argument in those days was based on perception. Although we in Parliament knew very well that the law Lords were independent of the Executive, that was not—so it was said—the perception of the public, or at least of some members of the public. However, there was never any evidence to suggest that that was the perception of the public except, if I remember correctly, a single piece of anecdotal evidence. This led the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth in a most memorable speech—I wish he was in his position to hear me say this—to describe the whole exercise as having been based on,
“the perception of a perception”.—[Official Report, 4/7/07; col. 1094.]
However, here we are—as the saying goes—and we must go on from here.
Having created the Supreme Court at a cost of £100 million, not to mention the huge increase in the annual cost of running it, we must now take it as it is and complete the job. I cannot imagine any provision more likely to create the impression of interference by the Executive in the affairs of the Supreme Court than that the chief executive should be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. If the Lord Chancellor was here, it would be no answer for him to say that in practice he would accept the nomination of a selection committee. The perception is there and, in this case, the reality is there.
I cannot remember whether we discussed Section 48(2) in the Select Committee that sat for many weeks. Nor can I remember why, in the end, we accepted the section as it stands, unless we perhaps had in mind the old style of Lord Chancellor before the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, rather than the new Lord Chancellor as he has become. Whatever thought processes went through our heads, I am now convinced that the section was a mistake, and therefore I am very glad to support the amendment.
Lord Goodhart
My Lords, I am going to take a rather unusual position on this and say that I am afraid I do not agree with Amendment 3. I was considerably involved in the drafting of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and I had no objection at that time to Sections 48 and 49, which are now objected to in this amendment. The reason why I do not welcome this amendment is that the chief executive is an administrator, not a judge. That being so, I see no serious reason why Lord Chancellors should not continue to be involved in the proceedings of Sections 48 and 49 as they now are. The administration of an issue which involves both those in charge of costs and those in charge of the law needs to recognise the real issues here because of the way in which the funds get to the Supreme Court.
I am in general a strong supporter of the two former judges who have put their names to this amendment and of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, but in this case I fail to be able to agree with them as they would clearly like.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Lord Lloyd of Berwick Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. I remember well when the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 was going through this House that I was much concerned by Section 76. I have always thought that the piecemeal amendment of the common law by legislation was a mistake unless such amendment was preceded by a report from, in the old days, the Criminal Law Revision Committee or, nowadays, the Law Commission. I suggest that there are two grave disadvantages in the sort of piecemeal amendment we are now asked to perform. First, it deprives the development in the common law of the flexibility that the common law provides as circumstances change. Once you put it in statute it is in statute, and if it is to be changed at all it has to be changed by statute. Secondly, it may often be initiated as the result of a particular campaign—this may be an example of that—without regard to the wider context.
I did not in fact oppose Section 76 when it went through the House because it at least did not in any way seek to change the law on self-defence. That is made amply clear by Section 9 itself. Section 76 was in some ways an odd provision because it refers both in subsection (1) to the test being one of reasonableness and in subsection (6) to the test being one of disproportion—although those two things might be thought to be opposite sides of exactly the same coin. That will not be so from now on because of the addition of the word “grossly” before the word “disproportionate”. For that reason Section 9, which made it clear that the common law was not going to be changed, has now itself been amended to show that, in this respect, the common law is being changed. We are thus now doing exactly what I feared would be the result if we stratified the law as we did in 2008.
What is being done is defended on the basis that it is very difficult for the householder, in the agony of the moment, to make a nice judgment as to what is reasonable or is not. That has always been the law, as my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf has made clear. Speaking from my own experience, I have always stressed that very point. In that respect, this will not change the law but it will, in fact, change the law in the way that I have described. Just as judges have got used to directing juries in accordance with Section 76, they will now have to change tack, which they should not be required to do.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, the Minister said that householders should not be subjected to criminal liability because of the use of force which may appear disproportionate in the cold light of day, and that the amendment is designed to redress the balance. It is very important to identify precisely what the balance is at the moment and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, have said, the law is very clear on this subject. The official specimen directions to a jury—what judges up and down the land actually tell jurors on this subject—are contained in the Crown Court Bench book which says:
“When considering whether the defendant’s conduct was reasonable do bear in mind that the person who is defending himself cannot be expected in the heat of the moment to weigh precisely the exact amount of defensive action which is necessary; and in this regard, the more serious the attack (or threatened attack) upon him, the more difficult his situation will be. If, in your judgment, the defendant was or may have been in a situation in which he found it necessary to defend himself and he did no more than what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary to defend himself, that would be very strong evidence that the amount of force used by him was reasonable”.
This provides all the protection that the householder needs or, indeed, deserves. The Minister did not refer to any cases of unjust convictions, or even unjust prosecutions that should not have been brought. The highest that the Minister put it in his opening remarks is that such cases “might conceivably” occur in the future. This is surely the weakest basis for proposing law reform that your Lordships will have heard for some time. Furthermore, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, that these amendments are inconsistent with our obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights to protect the right to life. It is one thing to allow the householder to use proportionate force and to assess that on the basis of what they honestly and reasonably understand the facts to be at the time they act in circumstances of shock and distress. It surely is a very different matter for Parliament to authorise the use of disproportionate force.
With great respect, I cannot understand why the Opposition Front Bench is not opposing this amendment in the Division Lobby today, despite the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, eloquently explaining that the amendment would cause confusion and nothing positive. It is all very well to treat this as a Second Reading debate but it is the only opportunity that this House will have to oppose the amendment. I hope that the Opposition will reconsider their position. I am sure that many noble Lords would join them in the Lobby if a Division were called.
This amendment is unnecessary, unprincipled and inconsistent with our international obligations. I hope that the Government will think again.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Lord Lloyd of Berwick Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, this amendment relates to the Supreme Court. It would leave out part of Clause 18 which would make way for the appointment of part-time judges in the Supreme Court.
I will start with some things on which I hope we are all agreed. First, that all judicial appointments should always be decided on the basis of merit, solely on merit and on nothing but merit. The Constitution Committee was quite right to reaffirm that fundamental principle, so I need say no more about it.
Secondly, we are all in agreement that we need greater diversity at all levels; that is to say, we need more women judges and ethnic minority judges, whether men or women. Happily, things are a good deal better in this regard today than they were 15 years ago. I will come back to the figures a little later. However, we all agree that still more diversity is desirable.
Thirdly, we need greater flexibility in our working arrangements; again, at all levels. There is already more flexibility than many people imagine. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, in Committee quoted the words of the Lord Chief Justice, which I shall quote also. He said that,
“we should be able to organise the sitting patterns for female High Court judges or male High Court judges who have caring responsibilities, so that during, for example, half term they can be at home ... I think those sorts of very small changes ... will help”.
Those sorts of small changes are already, in fact, happening.
Almost every noble Lord who spoke in Committee said that what we needed was more flexibility. Again, I agree. The point of disagreement is on whether, in order to get more women and ethnic minority judges in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, we should, for the first time, be appointing part-time judges at those levels.
I am aware that the Constitution Committee recommended the appointment of part-time judges in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, although not—I think I am right in saying—in the Supreme Court. However, that view was not at all widely supported in our debate in Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, for example, said that she agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that this is, as she put it, “about flexibility”. She regretted that the words “part-time” had been used in the Bill. She asked whether we should not be able to reformulate the wording of the Bill so that it is about flexibility. I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, that that is, indeed, what we ought to be doing. The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, who I am sorry not to see in her place today, made exactly the same point in Committee. She said:
“The meaning of part-time or flexible working is that people … say openly to their employer that they will be occasionally needing flexibility in terms of their personal arrangements and will be taking that flexibility from time to time … That is the basis on which this clause should be debated”.—[Official Report, 25/6/12; col. 94.]
I could not agree more.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who I am sorry not to see in his place—
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
He is here—hooray!—but not in his usual place. The noble and learned Lord also made the same point on that occasion. He said that he agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, when she said that this was about flexibility. He added:
“Part time, as a piece of language, may be a slightly misleading suggestion”.—[Official Report, 25/6/12; col. 99.]
I agree, except that I would not use the word “slightly”. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, was even more emphatic. At col. 102, he said that he agreed that “flexible” was the right word, not “part-time”. You could not put the purpose of my amendment more clearly than that.
However, the trouble for the Government is that that is not what the Bill states. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 12 says that instead of 12 full-time judges in the Supreme Court, there are to be an unspecified number of part-time judges. The Bill would therefore indeed provide for part-time judges, and that is what the Bill is about. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 12 is simply incapable of any other construction. If, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, stressed, the right word is “flexible”, not “part-time”, I respectfully suggest that he agrees to the amendment and comes back at Third Reading with a new provision, reformulated, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, suggested, on the basis of flexibility.
Towards the end of his speech, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that the Bill would send out a message that flexible working was,
“available from the top to the bottom of our judicial system”.—[Official Report, 25/6/12; col. 101.]
He added:
“I cannot think of a better message”.
However, if the message is to be about flexibility, for goodness sake let us say so in clear and simple language—something that we do not have in paragraph 2 of Schedule 12.
There is apparently to be no limit to the number of part-time judges in the Supreme Court; nor is there any minimum for the number of full-time equivalent judges, as they are to be called. When I was a Law Lord, I never thought that I was a full-time equivalent Law Lord, but that is how I should have described myself. There is a maximum of 12 members in the Supreme Court but no minimum, so we could have four part-time judges in the Supreme Court, all of whom would be men if they were the best candidates, and eight full-time judges, making 10—but only 10—full-time equivalent judges, all of whom would be male. Is that really the sort of message that we should be sending out with this Bill?
I said that I would come back to the figures, and in particular the number of ethnic minority judges currently serving in the High Court and above. In 1998, only 10% of all judges were women, but by the end of 2011 the figure was 22%—more than double. In 1998, there were no women in the House of Lords, only one in the Court of Appeal and only nine in the High Court. By the end of 2011, there was one woman in the Supreme Court, five in the Court of Appeal and 18 in the High Court—again, more than double. In Committee, the noble Lord described these figures as being a mere trickle. I think that that is somewhat disparaging of the efforts of successive Lord Chancellors to get more women to the top—something they are succeeding in doing.
The noble Lord seems to want to speed things up by, as I understand it, making direct part-time appointments to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. But where are these part-time women to come from? They will not come from the Court of Appeal or the High Court because there are no part-time women in those courts. What makes him think that, if we were to create new part-time vacancies in the Supreme Court, the best candidates would always be women and not men? In any event, would it be fair and just to promote part-time to the Supreme Court a woman who had not already served in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, once described as the only form of slavery not abolished in the 19th century?
The truth is that, if we open the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal to part-time judges, it will not make the slightest difference for years to come, if ever. The best way to get more women at those levels—and we all agree that there should be more—is to go on as we have been and to increase flexibility as far as we can so that women are not put off applying. We should let the best candidates come to the top in the ordinary way, as they always have done. That is how it has worked in Canada, where four out of nine Supreme Court judges are women, and in the United States, where there are no part-time judges. The same thing will happen here only if we let it happen in the ordinary way. That is the message that we need to send out to the women who are currently on the verge of a judicial career, and that is why I am asking the Government and the Opposition to think again about this and to come back at Third Reading with something that better meets the needs. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick
I am sure it is true that all Supreme Court justices—particularly the 11 men, if it is those to whom the noble and learned Lord is referring—have family care commitments. However, the same point can be made about all senior men in all other professions. We all have family care commitments. The difficulty, as the noble and learned Lord knows, is that the family care commitments that address the needs of children and, perhaps more relevantly at the senior levels of the judiciary, aged parents, tend in our society to fall on women rather than men. That is a social fact.
I say to those who support the amendment that I entirely understand the points they make about practical difficulties but it is important not to exaggerate the problems. Judges regularly take time off from judging to do other things. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, mentioned that judges are regularly appointed to head inquiries. Supreme Court justices sometimes take four to six weeks off to sit on the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong. One could give many other examples. The idea that the system cannot—
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Is that not the perfect example of what one means by flexible working as opposed to part-time working? They are not currently appointed part-time, but that is possible because of flexibility. That is what we should be aiming for.
Lord Pannick
My answer to the noble and learned Lord is that if the legal system is able to accommodate this type of problem—that judges regularly take time off to carry out other activities—then, like all other professions, it ought to be able to accommodate a female judge taking time off on a regular basis for domestic reasons. It remains to be seen whether allowing part-time judges to sit will result in more women judges at high levels. These powers are permissive, not obligatory, and no woman or man—although one anticipates that it is likely to be women who are so appointed—will be appointed unless it is practical.
My primary objection to these amendments is based on the factor to which the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, referred—which is the message that is sent out—although I arrive at a different conclusion. I suggest that it would be a very unfortunate message indeed for the law to confer an exemption for the senior judiciary from one of the most important means of enabling talented women to rise to senior positions in all professions. Watering down the part-time provisions in this Bill would wrongly suggest, wrongly, that the senior judiciary is not serious about doing all that it reasonably can to assist talented women to be appointed at senior levels. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
I hope that the noble Lord will be able to answer the key point. I agree with all that, but flexible working does not require part-time working.
Lord McNally
My Lords, as far as I understand, the process of appointment would be exactly as it is now. If, in the process of discussing a candidate for the Supreme Court, it became obvious that there was a candidate who would require flexibility in order to take up the appointment, that would be taken into account. But there is no question of the president of the Supreme Court, or anybody else, being ordered to take a part-time member because of this provision. It is there to give what it is hoped will be encouragement to those who have responsibilities outside their judicial responsibilities, so that they do not find that a bar to progress, but there is no special process of selection envisaged in this.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, I found the Minister’s reply very unsatisfactory because it seemed to me—I hope I am not saying what I should not—that much of his brief was written before he realised what point I was going to make.
Lord McNally
Half my remarks were made on notes that were there. The noble and learned Lord has now pressed for two full debates on whether “flexible” and “part-time” are interchangeable or whether one over-rides the other. I and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, in an act of unity, having tried to explain—there is nothing in the brief on it—I continue to puzzle about why the noble and learned Lord cannot see the interchangeability of the two. I have also got his note, the billet-doux he left me last night, which further pressed the case, but a large number of people, whose opinions I express, do not find the confusion that he does about the two terms.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
All I can say by way of reply is that nobody except the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, regards flexible and part-time work as being interchangeable. They clearly are not. One is one thing and one is another. If the Bill were to take effect, one would have to calculate at some point how many part-time members, as it were, occupy the time of the Supreme Court, and how many full-time members. The thing is simply impractical on the basis of salaried part-time members who would be paid less than full-time members. Those are simply the financial impracticabilities, but there are also all the other impracticabilities that have been pointed out by other Members who have spoken. It would simply be, as has been said more than once, a nightmare to work out in practice. It would raise expectations which I suspect that we all know would never be fulfilled.
It would be so easy for the Minister, consequent on all the things that were said in Committee as well as by other speakers today, to substitute “flexibility” for “part-time” working. Then we would all agree. The suggestion made that these are two ways of looking at the same thing, in my respectful submission, simply makes no sense. But obviously I am not going to persuade the Minister, and I suspect that the Opposition will take the view that they have indicated that they will take. I regret it very much. However, for the reasons that I have tried to give, I seek the opinion of the House.
Child Abuse: Waterhouse Inquiry
Lord Lloyd of Berwick Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Statement repeated by Lord Taylor of Holbeach on 6 November (HL Deb, col. 893), whether they will reconsider their appointment of a “senior independent figure” to investigate whether “the Waterhouse Inquiry was properly constituted and did its job”.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
No, my Lords. Mrs Justice Macur’s review will proceed with the terms of reference laid before this House last Thursday.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that in view of Mr Steve Messham’s withdrawal of any allegation against Lord McNally—
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
I had better start that question again. Does the noble Lord, Lord McNally, agree that in view of Mr Steve Messham’s withdrawal of any allegation against Lord McAlpine, there is no longer any need for another High Court judge to go over the work of Sir Ronald Waterhouse 15 years ago? On the contrary, we should all be grateful for his impeccable conduct of that inquiry and the thoroughness of his report. Will the Minister tell the House what, if any, inquiries the Prime Minister made about Mr Messham’s credibility before announcing another inquiry into the same matters on 5 November?
Lord McNally
My Lords, I sincerely hope that that well known twitterer on the Front Bench opposite has not put my name on to this. I can understand where the noble and learned Lord is coming from. When we ask a senior judge to carry out an inquiry and they do so with the thoroughness with which the Waterhouse inquiry was carried out, there is a certain duty to respect the integrity of that work. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will also accept that the situation that we faced was not just that of a single individual coming forward but of a large amount of accusations being bandied around and a great deal of public concern. The Macur review terms of reference have been more widely drawn. Mrs Justice Macur will look at whether any specific allegations of child abuse within the terms of reference of the Waterhouse inquiry were not investigated. Quite frankly, the strength of public feeling justifies us going through with the Macur review.
Justice: Indeterminate Sentences
Lord Lloyd of Berwick Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they plan to take following the decision by the European Court of Human Rights on 18 September in the case of James v UK that the detention of prisoners serving an Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection beyond their tariff without access to parole is a breach of their rights under Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the Government are still considering whether to appeal against this decision. The Government have three months from the date of the judgment to submit an application to the Grand Chamber which will effectively be appealing the decision.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, the noble Lord will know the figures because he was kind enough to give them to me last night. There are currently 6,000 people serving IPP sentences, 3,500 of whom have already passed their tariff date and are currently waiting to appear before the Parole Board. Of those 3,500, 2,000 have been waiting for more than two years and 350 have been waiting for more than four years. The court has held in no uncertain terms that their detention in these circumstances is arbitrary and therefore unlawful. Does the noble Lord recognise the scale of this continuing disaster? Does he accept that the Government must do something now to get these wretched people out of prison?
Lord McNally
My Lords, the Government have done something. IPPs were abolished by the LASPO Act, but unwinding the system has to be done very carefully. We are not talking about people who are innocent, but people who have been sentenced for long periods for serious crimes. The IPP system was introduced by the previous Government with, I think, a genuine intent to deal with this problem. We are bringing in a more flexible approach and we have both the Parole Board and NOMS working closely on it. However, it is not simply a matter of throwing open the gates of the prison because in some cases we are dealing with very dangerous people, so we must have public protection in mind when deciding how to deal with them.
Crime and Courts Bill [HL]
Lord Lloyd of Berwick Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
My Lords, there have been some very important contributions to this debate. I have agreed with pretty well every word. I therefore ask the House to forgive me if there is some repetition of what has been said.
We must be clear about what we want from the courts in terms of community sentencing and what we expect from those who deliver sentences. Above all, we must be clear about the values that inform the process. In introducing himself and the Government’s proposals, Chris Grayling announced that he is going to be a “tough Justice Secretary” because he believes that greater toughness and more punishment is what the people of this country need and want. I wonder. A lot depends on interpretation and what is meant by and expected from this new emphasis on punishment as an additional element in all community sentences. I question whether what he is proposing will indeed be a positive way forward.
The greatest proportion of all those coming before the courts receive community sentences, which have already proved to be significantly more effective than prison in reducing reoffending by more than 8.4%. Of course, they could and indeed should be still more effective, focused and robust, particularly if better resourced, and I hope that the Government will do just that. Like others, I pay tribute to the probation service in particular for its role in providing an infrastructure and effective programmes with experience and skill all around the country.
The purposes of sentencing as set out in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and revised in 2007 remain, I assume, the agreed framework. Very importantly, the five elements are interdependent and must be applied in equal measure. They are: reparation, rehabilitation, punishment, crime reduction and public protection. However, the Government want to alter this balance and prioritise punishment, assuming that the sanctions currently available are in some way too soft. This also begs the question of why some people break the law, whether those involved in low-level reoffending are thinking of potential sanctions they might face if they are caught, and whether punishment per se will have a significant effect anyway.
The Government say that they want more punishment in every order and that this would generally mean,
“restrictions of liberty that represent to the public a recognisable sanction”.
As has been said, these are curfews, exclusion or community payback. The Government also say that,
“what is punitive for one offender … will not necessarily be punitive for another”,
recognising that all disposals must be relevant to the individual offender. Clearly, community sentences should challenge in ways that will effect change, especially in reoffending, and the public need to be confident that this is happening. However, typically the needs of such offenders are significant, particularly in terms of mental health, lack of education and school exclusion, low IQ, domestic violence, unemployment, homelessness et cetera. Unless the sanctions of community sentences take these into account and support needs are met, they are bound to fail.
It is unhelpful and misleading to attempt to separate the punitive and non-punitive elements of an order. This is because they are interconnected, and the chances of breach and reoffending are high if this is ignored. It also risks—as we have heard it so eloquently put by my noble hero—constraining judges and magistrates, who must take into account the individual offender’s circumstances as well as the offence. I suggest that successfully preventing reoffending matters more than being punitive for its own sake and should remain the ultimate goal of sentencing.
The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has done some very interesting work for the MoJ on punitive sanctions and found that unpaid work alone—that is, a “punitive requirement”—had no impact at all. It found that a lot depends on the needs of the offender, and the best chances of punishment having some effect are when it is added to supervision and a programme. This indicates more clearly than ever that punishment has an effective place in the sentencing armoury only in combination with other interventions relevant to the individual. I urge the Government and my noble friend, when he is in his place, to look closely at their own good research on the place of punishment in what they hope to achieve in reducing reoffending.
The Government are quite rightly concerned about public confidence and the confidence of the courts in the effectiveness of community-based sentencing. This hinges on a combination of knowledge, understanding and experience and, where community sentencing is concerned, a great deal more is required. Community justice is an area where public confidence is not high because so little is generally known of the reality of sentences and community sanctions. This is hardly surprising because they do not take place in a public arena and you cannot see or hear what a curfew or an exclusion order or tagging entails. Even community payback is rarely publicly visible either, let alone the reality of specific programmes for drug or alcohol abuse, mental illness et cetera.
An extremely effective programme run by the Magistrates’ Association in conjunction with the probation service, Local Crime Community Sentence, aims precisely to close this gap in awareness and knowledge of how the whole process works by taking audiences through real cases and making them act as sentencers. The resulting growth in understanding and confidence in the process on the part of participants is palpable and measurable. We need much more of this kind of initiative and much more information.
Another piece of important work recently carried out by Victim Support and Make Justice Work—mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—has demonstrated how much the public, especially the victims of crime, want to have more information at every stage of the criminal justice process. They want to be involved by having their views heard and then being kept in the loop with the outcomes of sentencing. Crucially, the overriding response from victims, as we have already heard, is the need to be reassured that what they have experienced never happens again to anyone. This is a far stronger feeling than any retributive response, which the Government should heed. Victims want to know, too, what community penalties consist of, and so they should. I believe that, if they did, they would be encouraged by much of what they found and thus be more confident. Their voice must be heard and the Government must have ears to hear. The Government should develop more programmes and information dissemination to make these realities more visible and available to victims in particular.
This need extends to sentencers, too. As chair of Rethinking Crime and Punishment, I saw the effect of visits that we arranged for judges and magistrates to programmes available to them in their area to see work being done by the probation service and local voluntary agencies. It was like an epiphany to many, because judges do not normally get out and about that much to make such visits. Sentencers must know more about the disposals available to them. Magistrates, too, no longer have basic travel expenses paid for such visits and have difficulty in many areas staying in touch with local provision. There is no substitute for first-hand visits and discussion. “I never knew it was like that”, was often the refrain after these visits. I hope that the Government, with their enthusiasm for community penalties, will look again and restore this very modest but potentially transformative practical support.
Finally, I shall say a quick word on restorative justice. The proposal that it should be readily available to the courts, victims and offenders is an enormously important move. It represents the embodiment of the same principles of effective justice that I have already discussed—namely awareness, knowledge, understanding and meaningful engagement with the participants, particularly victims. I have supported these principles and the work of the Restorative Justice Council for years. I welcome these proposals as having the best possible potential for enabling positive outcomes following the damage of crime.
My caveat is that it will take a great deal of time and large investment to provide adequate numbers of suitably trained and accredited facilitators, who are key to the process. Sentencers who would be initiating the process currently have no established tradition in the use of RJ. They would need training as well as convincing. The whole process will be extremely complex and expensive, and it will be vital to ensure that the quality of delivery is of the best and not rolled out in a piecemeal fashion. It would be a disaster if expectations were raised without adequate quality delivery. That would destroy confidence and set the programme back for a long time. The Government must clarify not only how much they are planning to invest in training, promoting and delivery but the estimated timescale for the rollout of RJ. I cannot imagine that it will become widely let alone generally available for some considerable time, even with the expert advice and support of the Restorative Justice Council and other agencies. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.
Positive change does not happen through negative strategies. Punishment will fail unless it is married to positive strategies geared to the needs of each individual —victim and offender alike. The research confirms this. I urge that that should be our goal.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. I had not intended to speak so will do so briefly.
I particularly wanted to say how much I agreed with the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. What we are engaged on here is taking another step down what has become, recently and most unfortunately, a well-trodden path: you create a new offence carrying a mandatory sentence; you then allow the court not to impose the sentence if there are exceptional circumstances that would make it unjust to do so. My first observation on that, of course, is that it is a complete misuse of the word mandatory. The word mandatory should be confined to cases that are really mandatory, like the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. However, there is a worse objection. It seems to me that it creates confusion. Of course, it has every advantage from the Government’s point of view, because it enables them to say that they are being tough on crime. At the same time, however, they can say that they are not leaning on the judges—oh no, no—to impose a sentence that they would not otherwise impose since courts never impose a sentence that they do not regard as just. That point was made very eloquently by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf.
The Minister must say in reply which of the two ways he intends to have it. What do the Government really mean? What do they really want? In legislation, especially in criminal matters, clarity is of the first importance. Absence of clarity, such as I think one will find in the working of Part 1 of the schedule, has bedevilled criminal legislation, especially in the area of sentencing, in recent years.
EU: European Justice and Home Affairs Powers
Lord Lloyd of Berwick Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, I start by welcoming the fact that the Government are consulting so soon on whether or not to opt out. That seems an entirely good thing. I also welcome the fact that they are consulting the various committees listed in the Statement.
I suggest that those committees, and indeed the Government, could do no better than to start by reading—and, if I may say so, inwardly digesting—a working paper very recently produced by a group of very distinguished academics under the leadership of Professor John Spencer of Cambridge University, entitled Opting Out of EU Criminal Law: What is Actually Involved?. It was the result of much work over the summer and was published only last month. The report starts by disposing of various myths that have surrounded this subject since first it raised its head: in particular, the myth that one can pick and choose what one is going to opt out of. Happily, the Government accept that we simply cannot do that.
However, the Government believe that we can opt out of the whole and then try to negotiate our way back in where it suits us—the so-called Danish solution. But what if we do not succeed? It is quite wrong to suppose that all 130 pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures are bad. On the contrary, they are not. We will in any event be bound by all post-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures—that is another myth that is widely believed. So it will be partly one and partly the other. If we opt out, we may in the end get the worst of all possible worlds in deference to the pressure that I think we all understand.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has already referred to the “current thinking” of the Government on this matter being to opt out. I implore the Government to keep their current thinking on this matter under review.
Lord McNally
My Lords, the whole point of the exercise is that the Government can keep their thinking under review and can take on board the kind of evidence and study that the noble and learned Lord referred to. He puts his finger on it entirely. We were faced with the position, as the Lisbon treaty stands, that we could not pick and choose what we opt out of; we can simply opt out and then negotiate on the basis of opting back in. Is that a high-risk strategy? We will take the evidence of the debate that unfolds in both Houses, from the committees of both Houses and from academic, judicial and other advice that we receive. However, I do not think that the Government can be accused of taking an irrational way forward. It seems a very measured way forward that gives us time—the noble and learned Lord welcomed how soon this decision had been made. It is because we are taking this early decision that we are going to be able to make the kind of measured decision in the national interest that I think both Houses will welcome in the end.
Defamation Bill
Lord Lloyd of Berwick Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. Like him, I welcome the Bill. I agree with almost all—indeed, I think I can say all—its main objectives. However, I should add that unlike the noble Lord I have never been an expert in the law of defamation. I will therefore say nothing about the important clauses, Clauses 4 and 6, which have been the subject of full discussion by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and many other noble Lords. Those are the important clauses.
However, I once gave the leading judgment in a decision of the Court of Appeal on the subject of fair comment, which is now to be renamed, under Clause 3, “Honest opinion”. That is my only reason for speaking tonight. It was the case of Telnikoff v Matusevitch, who were both Russian émigrés living in London. The great question was whether in a defence of fair comment it was for the defendant to prove that he had an honest belief in what he had written. We in the Court of Appeal held that it was not for him to make that proof. The question was whether an honest man could hold such a belief—the test that is proposed in Clause 3(4). In other words, the test should be objective and not subjective. The case went to the House of Lords and, I have to say, the Court of Appeal’s judgment on that point was unanimously upheld.
I mention that only because there was a later case in the Supreme Court on the subject of fair comment, Joseph v Spiller, in which exactly the same point arose. A lengthy judgment was given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers. Why is it that all judgments in the Supreme Court seem to get lengthier and lengthier—far longer than when I was giving judgments in the House of Lords—with every year that passes? At the end of that judgment, he made three suggestions: first, that it was high time to reform the law of defamation; secondly, that we should make a start by renaming fair comment as honest belief or opinion; and thirdly, that the test should be subjective and not objective. I agree with the noble and learned Lord’s first and second suggestions, which is why I support Clause 3, and indeed the Bill as a whole. However, with great respect, I do not agree with his third suggestion. I do not know whether this will become a live issue in Committee—I profoundly hope not. However, if it does, I remain of the view that the test should be objective, not subjective—in other words, the test as set out in Clause 3(4).
However, there was another point in the case of Telnikoff v Matusevitch. The defamatory words were contained in a letter written to a newspaper, in which the writer referred specifically to an article which had appeared in the same newspaper only a few days before. We held that this was sufficient to enable the defendant to rely on fair comment. However, we were reversed on that point by the House of Lords. It said that, since some people might have read the letter without having read the article, the facts contained in the article should have been set out in the letter. I always thought that the House of Lords was wrong about that and that the dissenting judgment of Lord Ackner, who many noble Lords will remember, was much to be preferred. I end by asking whether I am right in thinking that, if similar facts were to come before the court today, it could take a different view from that taken by the House of Lords in light of Clause 3(3) of the current Bill. If so, it will prove that Lord Ackner and the Court of Appeal were right all along.