StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

Reform on The English Libel Law - Essay Example

Cite this document
Summary
This essay “Reform on the English libel law” seeks to critique the current Defamation Bill (As Amended on Report, ordered to be printed in 2013) particularly focusing on Clauses 4, 5 and 6 thereof. The said Clauses provide for some of the defences to an action for defamation…
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER95.5% of users find it useful
Reform on The English Libel Law
Read Text Preview

Extract of sample "Reform on The English Libel Law"

Reform on the English libel law Introduction The need for reform on the English libel law has been recognized through a proposed Defamation Bill seeking to do away with the “chilling effect” on the right to free expression especially where threats of filing libel suits have been frequent (The International Forum for Responsible Media Blogs, 2010). Because the law itself is incomprehensible and outdated, it chills the speech (The International Forum for Responsible Media Blogs, 2010) and restrains the media from publishing issues involving public interest, scientific or academic matters (Mullis & Scott, 2011, p. 6). However, does the Defamation Bill reflect these concerns? This essay seeks to critique the current Defamation Bill (As Amended on Report, ordered to be printed on 5 February 2013) particularly focusing on Clauses 4, 5 and 6 thereof. The said Clauses provide for some of the defences to an action for defamation. Clause 4 Clause 4 refers to the truthfulness of the imputation which if shown by the defendant to be substantially true, then it may be a defence in an action for imputation (Defamation Bill, Clause 4). Additionally, where there are two or more distinct imputations, the defence of truth will not be diminished if the imputations which appear to be substantially true, those not shown to be substantially true do not significantly injure the claimant’s reputation (Defamation Bill, Clause 4). This clause seeks to substitute the previous common law defence of justification (Shaw & Chamberlain, 2011, p. 49). The defendant must show that the imputation made is ‘substantially true’, a stand of the common law (Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1772). Although there is no definition on what is “substantially true,” still, there is no ambiguity as to the meaning of truth (Mullis & Scott, 2011, p. 12, citing the Oxford English Dictionary). The burden of proof is with the defendant to establish the truth as to the imputation made and is an agreeable aspect of the bill (Mullis & Scott, 2011, p. 12). This compels a publisher to determine first if the statement is reasonable or justifiable before publishing the same (Mullis & Scott, 2011, p. 12). A legal responsibility is placed on any person and proper restraints made on the media especially in stating serious allegations (Mullis & Scott, 2011, p. 12). Although it should be the claimant that should have the burden of proof to demonstrate the falsity of an imputation since the former is in a better position to demonstrate such, this is not always true as the facts would wholly rely on the kind of imputation made (Mullis & Scott, 2011, p. 12). The terms “substantially true” and “serious harm” on claimant’s reputation, were not defined in the bill and opens a wide interpretation as to its meaning (Mullis & Scott, 2011). Litigation may likely occur especially on the demarcation between those considered as substantially true and which are not, or those considered as a significant injury to a claimant’s repute (Young, 2011). Further, although the truth may be known, it may nevertheless be difficult to establish (Flood v Times, [2009] EWHC 2375 (QB)), (Young, 2011). There is no criterion to lessen the probability of increasing false information especially as to those which may occur after publication (Young, 2011). It would be hard to comply with the required responsible journalism especially where the imputation was false, but was nevertheless supported by sufficient evidence that the statement was true at the time when such a statement was published by the responsible publisher (Young, 2011). Clause 5 This is the defence of “Honest Opinion” and sets forth the conditions that it must be a statement of opinion; such opinion is of public interest; the “honest person could have held the opinion” based on “a) a fact which existed when the statement complained of was published; and (b) a privileged statement published before the statement complained of” (Shaw & Chamberlain, 2011, p. 49, citing the Defamation Bill). This defence may be overcome by claimant’s showing that the defendant was not stating an opinion, or if the defendant who was not the author thereof, knew or must have known that the author of such statement was not holding an opinion (Shaw & Chamberlain, 2011, p. 49, citing the Defamation Bill). This particular clause supersedes the previous fair comment reflected in common law defence (Spiller v Joseph [2010] UKSC 53). The third condition simplifies the law through a “clear and straightforward test” to avoid complications in the case law (Shaw & Chamberlain, 2011, p. 49). A fact or privileged statement need not be required to be recognisable being determined already from the words being ascribed to (Shaw & Chamberlain, 2011, p. 49). This clause aims to widen the extent of a defence but may still be defeated if the statement was made with malice (Shaw & Chamberlain, 2011, p. 49). In this clause, there is the difficulty in differentiating “fact from comment” (Singh ([2009] EWCA Civ 1075; [2010] EWCA Civ 350; [2009] EWHC 1101). This clause should have been named as ‘honest comment’ having a sounder reflection of the actual experience (BCA v Singh [2010] EWCA Civ 350, at para [142]). This clause exacts fairness or reasonableness, as this may be availed of by a person who merely articulates an opinion which a truthful minded individual could hold even though the opinion was unreasonable (Mullis & Scott, 2011, p. 11). As to the other defences under Clause 5, the defendant does not need to ascertain if the facts are all true as published, on the condition that there is adequate basis for forming an opinion expressed by honest person (Mullis & Scott, 2011, p. 11). As to the criticism of difficulty in ascertaining a fact from an opinion, the same may be established when a reasonable reader recognizes the words or matters in issue as an opinion (Mullis & Scott, 2011, p. 11). Another criticism is the effect that a person allowed to express an opinion based on another’s opinion grounded on false facts, may also rely on such a defence (Mullis & Scott, 2011, p. 12). This should not be the case especially if during the time he conveyed his opinion, he based it on a fact that does not yet exist (Mullis & Scott, 2011, p. 12). This defence must only be applicable to the defendant who honestly believed that in holding an opinion, he based it on the data he knew when he stated his comment (Mullis & Scott, 2011, p. 12). Such a defence would be subjective on one hand and objective on the other (Mullis & Scott, 2011, p. 12). Hence, it is more persuasive if the defendant had the burden to prove that he actually knew the facts he relies on (judgment of Eady J in Lowe v Associated Newspapers ([2006] EWHC 320 [2006] 3 All ER 357, at [74]). An individual must not be allowed to make remarks on the opinion of others or on rumours, nor depend on inexistent facts during the time a remark was made (Mullis & Scott, 2011, p. 12). There is also no assurance that litigation would be lessened with the stringent rule on honest opinion, nevertheless, these strict requirements may dissuade potential claimants or even dissuade publication especially where the legal defences are vague (Young, 2011). Finally under this clause, the word ‘malice’ was avoided being a confusing term (Lord Bramwell in Abrath v North Eastern Railway Co. (1886) 11 App.Cas. 247 at 253) and stressed on the test that an honest opinion is an honest belief (Cheng v Tse Wai Chun ([2000] 3 HKLRD 418 [2001] EMLR 31, (2000) 10 BHRC 525)). Clause 6 This defence involves publishing matters of public interest. The defendant must show that the statement at issue involves public interest, and that he performed responsibly when the statement was published (Shaw & Chamberlaine, 2011, p. 49). It is assumed that the defendant acted responsibly when the published statement reflects a truthful and unbiased description of a discussion (Shaw & Chamberlaine, 2011, p. 49). This clause replaces the ‘Reynolds Privilege’ in the common law defence (Reynolds v Times Newspapers [2001] 2 AC 127). There is no definition as to the meaning of public interest (Shaw & Chamberlaine, 2011, p. 49). Subsection 3 of the clause purposely protects “a responsible publisher” who made an accurate and impartial publication of a described dispute between a claimant and a third person (Shaw & Chamberlaine, 2011, p. 49). This clause also seeks to summarize a “class of qualified privilege” or “reportage” (Al-Fagih [2001] All ER (D) 48). Conclusion The Bill has been unsuccessful in addressing the problems pertaining to the libel law (Mullis & Scott, 2011, p. 16). It trifles with the common law rules, making it appear to be more sympathetic towards freedom of expression, but does little to attain to simplify or reduce attendant cost (Mullis & Scott, 2011, p. 16). Some of the proposed rules are not sufficiently justified and may even increase the cost as well as the complexity of libel (Mullis & Scott, 2011, p. 16). It fails to attain its objectives and to consider the “rights and interests of claimants, defendants and the wider public” to achieve a true reform (Mullis & Scott, 2011, p. 16). It also fails to acknowledge the possibility that individuals may have other options in choosing their source of information or to provide an avenue for claimants to issue their own account of what happened (Young 2011). References Abrath v North Eastern Railway Co. (1886) 11 App.Cas. 247 at 253. Al-Fagih [2001] All ER (D) 48. BCA v Singh [2010] EWCA Civ 350, at para [142]. Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1772. Cheng v Tse Wai Chun ([2000] 3 HKLRD 418 [2001] EMLR 31, (2000) 10 BHRC 525). Flood v Times, [2009] EWHC 2375 (QB). Lowe v Associated Newspapers ([2006] EWHC 320 [2006] 3 All ER 357, at [74]. Mullis, A & Scott A 2011, Lord Lester's Defamation Bill 2010: a distorted view of the public interest? Communications Law, Volume 16(1), 6-18. Shaw, R & Chamberlain, P 2011, Libel reform: draft Defamation Bill seeks a legal balance but ignores the costs issue, Communications Law, Volume 16(2), 49-51. Singh ([2009] EWCA Civ 1075; [2010] EWCA Civ 350; [2009] EWHC 1101). Spiller v Joseph [2010] UKSC 53. The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog 2010, Lord Lester’s Defamation Bill – Explanatory Notes, The International Forum for Responsible Media Blog viewed from http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/lord-lesters-defamation-bill-explanatory-notes/ UK Parliament 2013, HL Bill 84 - Defamation Bill (As Amended on Report), UK Parliament viewed on 11 April 2013 from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/2012-2013/0084/lbill_2012-20130084_en_1.htm Young, A 2011, Draft Defamation Bill – A Missed Opportunity? Constitutional Law Group viewed from http://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2011/04/15/draft_defamation_bill/ Read More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(“Reform on The English Libel Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/law/1472391-the-defamation-bill
(Reform on The English Libel Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 Words)
https://studentshare.org/law/1472391-the-defamation-bill.
“Reform on The English Libel Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/law/1472391-the-defamation-bill.
  • Cited: 0 times

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Reform on The English Libel Law

The Tort Misuse of Private Information

the english Courts have established publishing unauthorized photographs or information constitutes a breach of confidence.... the english Courts have established, in many cases, publishing unauthorized photographs or information constitutes a breach of confidence.... “It may be hardly doubted that the lack of a clear legal remedy in respect of the non-consensual disclosure of personal information is one of the most serious lacunae in English law” 3 Radical developments in breach of confidence have been ushered-in since The Human Rights Act 1998, and privacy, confidentiality and information sharing are now covered comprehensively under this Act....
18 Pages (4500 words) Essay

Law-Making Powers of Parliament

Parliament's law-making Powers Introduction The laws of any country continue evolving to fit the requirement of the time and situation.... Many basic laws are adopted by all countries such as the constitution and common-law systems.... Whilst specific bodies are concerned with the enactment of laws, however, does not mean for constituents or citizens to leave law makers by themselves.... It is therefore necessary for all concerned to be always in the lookout for opportunities, if not create ways to have their questions and issues be heard by their law makers....
10 Pages (2500 words) Essay

LAW OF TORT 2- DEFAMATION

law of Tort 2: Defamation I.... Introduction Everyone owes a duty of care to those affected by his or her actions and is liable in law for his or her negligence.... Tort is the law that relates to civil wrongs, and in particular the laws relating to negligence.... Here, the law of tort, negligence, and duty of care will be sufficiently explained.... law of Tort ‘Tort' is the French word for a wrong.... Negligence, Liability for Negligence, and Defences Against Negligence The case of “Donoghue –v- Stephenson” (2011), set out the basic principles of negligence in English law (pp....
5 Pages (1250 words) Coursework

The UK Defamation Law

Moreover, changes made to the England and Wales libel law will be discussed along with the consequences of legal changes in USA and UK Defamation Act.... UK Defamation law [University] UK defamation law – does it place an unwarranted restriction on our right to freedom of expression?... Defamation law comprises of all the legal rights and obligations strictly related to defamatory actions.... However, in UK the defamation law restricts and hinders it by asking a proof for defamatory material....
8 Pages (2000 words) Essay

Improvements to the Law as Introduced by the Defamation Act 2013

… Improvements to the law as Introduced by the Defamation Act 2013 In relation to freedom of expression and people's dependency over the use of information technology such as the Internet, the Defamation Act 2013 was enacted in order to improve the existing English defamation law.... In line with this, reasons why Defamation Act 2013 has failed to provide any significant improvements to the existing law will be tacked in details.... Despite the changes in UK's latest Defamation Act, question arises as to whether or not the Defamation Act 2013 can make significant change in the defamation law in UK....
10 Pages (2500 words) Essay

Trust Law: Fiduciary Relationship Recognized in English Law

The author of the paper gives detailed information about three types of fiduciary relationship recognized in English law academics.... Canadian law recognizes such a relationship existing between doctors and patients4 and even child-abuser and victim5.... The law also recognizes the use of the fiduciary relationship as a means of achieving remedial justice.... An unusual english example is that found in Reading v A-G [1949] where a corrupt army sergeant accepted bribes from smugglers of drugs and spirits....
4 Pages (1000 words) Assignment

The Right to Protect Your Reputation and the Right to Free Speech

??1 This point is amply substantiated by the evaluating the law of defamation and the right to free speech with particular emphasis on how the courts have protected the reputation of the individual the english law of defamation is decidedly complicated.... It is a firmly established tenet of English law that the individual has the right to protect his good reputation and that anyone who impugns that reputation should be liable in damages.... Similarly, English law emphasises the right to free speech....
14 Pages (3500 words) Essay

Press Freedom

In 1735, he established the first important victory for freedom of the press in the english colonies of North America.... John Peter Zenger, who was born in 1697 in Germany and died on July 28, 1746, in New York City, New York printer and journalist whose famous acquittal in a libel suit....
8 Pages (2000 words) Assignment
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us