Today is the day that Anthony Lester – aka Lord Lester of Herne Hill, QC – officially unveils his libel reform bill (see: Lord Lester looks to limit libel litigation).
Here’s a round up of responses.
“I would refute Lord Lester’s recent assertion that English libel law is ‘notoriously costly, complicated and stifling of free speech’. … It is not so much the international litigant who is likely to be affected by the draconian reforms being advocated in the press, but rather the rights of the individual UK citizen.”
Paul Tweed, media lawyer for Johnsons Solicitors, says freedom of the press should not mean citizens become “fair game” (Journalism.co.uk).
“With every week that passes, we are contacted by yet more writers and researchers who have been threatened with libel action. In the face of high costs and weak defences, they withdraw their articles, hold back their material from public discussion and, in the end, stop asking vital questions of public interest. Lord Lester’s Bill should be considered urgently by the Government.”
Tracey Brown, of Sense About Science (via email).
“Fortunately there is now, among the senior judiciary, in other respects considerable momentum for substantive improvement of libel law. An enormous advance is the case of Dr Singh who was accused of libel by the British Chiropractic Association over a piece he wrote for the Guardian in April 2008 suggesting that there was a lack of evidence for claims some chiropractors make on certain childhood claims.”
An excerpt from Lord Steyn’s recent Boydell Lecture, from Jon Slattery’s blog.
“I give the bill as introduced a snowball’s chance in hell: Regardless of party allegiance, it can — and almost certainly will — be killed by the personal interests of those who’ve been stung (justifiably or not) by England’s press, or who fear such.”
The Scrivener’s Error blog.
“Lord Lester’s Bill should be welcomed by free speech campaigners. The proposals follow on from the Singh decision in expanding and enhancing the defence of honest opinion. This ought to be good news for all those seeking to engage in hard-hitting debate.”
Robert Dougans, solicitor for Simon Singh (via email).