Defamation Bill

Debate between Lord May of Oxford and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord May of Oxford]

Many of the more celebrated cases in the libel tourism that has generated all this activity, such as the £1.5 million spent by the journal Nature in defending a plainly factual but defamatory statement about an Asian journal that was created simply to publish the papers of the sponsor, are of just that character. The statement were plain fact, but the action brought in this country by people outside it cost huge sums of money. The action involving Simon Singh was another example. What he was saying was plainly factual but was defamatory; it was intended to be so in every meaningful sense, and properly so. Somehow we keep losing sight of this in the legal elegances.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

I trespass on the noble Baroness’s time by giving another simple contemporary example. If I had said during his lifetime that Jimmy Savile was a horrible paedophile, that would have been seriously defamatory. Had I had access then to the information that we have now and he had sued me, I could have justified that. It therefore would have been defamatory but not unlawful. It is as simple as that.

Defamation Bill

Debate between Lord May of Oxford and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, of course I accept that. I would like to say that I am grateful for the apology, but I am not sure that I am. I had worked out that there were four of us and I had not worked out who was left out, but now I know that it was me. It matters not, perhaps, what the conversations were, as I think that I have made the point.

[Lord May of Oxford]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 22 but in a broader context, as I believe that it relates directly to some of what many people feel to be the unsatisfactory elements of the Bill in its present form and Clause 4 in particular. In saying that, I express my appreciation of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the Government generally for helpfully moving things forward in response to earlier worries. I much appreciated the noble Lord’s comments, particularly in connection with Clause 4.

The Government’s proposed amendment to Clause 4 is a big improvement. The proposal significantly to modify Clause 4, which in its original form was largely an unhelpful codification of existing law, has been widely welcomed by those campaigning for a public interest defence—some 60,000 people have been involved one way or another. They and many of those involved in the awful cases that have given rise to the broad campaign for reform have been unable effectively to use a defence that was designed for newspapers. It is too complex and usually hugely expensive. It is certainly not suited to what medical specialists say at a conference, to reports on consumer issues or to reports on human rights.

Given that the Government appear to have recognised this fundamental point, I believe that they should clarify things further by changing the wording of Amendment 21. It says:

“In determining whether it was reasonable for the defendant to believe that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest, the court must make such allowance for editorial judgement as it considers appropriate”.

The phrase “editorial judgement” has the subtext of newspapers. That covers much of the matter, although not necessarily legalistically. It would be much clearer if it said, “such allowance for the publisher’s judgement as it considers appropriate”. I notice that, despite the many sensitive comments that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has made, he was not minded to accept this amendment, but I will persist with it.

I want to go little more widely. This amendment addresses part of a more general problem, in that the Bill still seems to many readers to focus on newspapers, editors and corporations. We need to recognise that the central need that has provoked the entire issue of the revision of the Bill is for a well drafted protection of individuals acting in the public interest. It needs to correct the current internationally notorious and embarrassing situation which is being abused by those with deep pockets who travel to the UK with the specific aim of using our existing legislation and its whacking great costs to prevent individuals speaking out on issues of public interest, particularly in biomedical and other scientific contexts. I realise fully that this is only part of a larger problem.