Government to publish draft libel law reform bill

Plans to review the law on defamation "to protect free speech and freedom of expression" were outlined today by Justice Minister Lord McNally.
The Ministry of Justice will publish a draft Defamation Bill for consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny in the new year, with a view to introducing a Bill as soon after that as parliamentary time allows.
It said: "Proposals for reform will be the subject of consultation with interested parties to ensure that a wide range of views are taken into account and that a fully informed assessment of reform is reached.
"The Government recognises the impact that the current law may be having on freedom of expression, particularly in relation to academic and scientific debate, the work of non-governmental organisations and investigative journalism and will be looking at options for addressing concerns around 'libel tourism'."
Lord McNally said:"Freedom of speech is the foundation of democracy. We need investigative journalism and scientific research to be able to flourish without the fear of unfounded, lengthy and costly defamation and libel cases being brought against them.
"We are committed to reforming the law on defamation and want to focus on ensuring that a right and a fair balance is struck between freedom of expression and the protection of reputation.
"The debate today in the House of Lords and Lord Lester's Private Members Bill has greatly assisted our thinking on the matter. We will now move ahead with a draft Government Bill with all due urgency."

Juries: 'Fade factor on media coverage proved'

 

 Key findings of a new Ministry of Justice research report on juries shows that the "fade factor"  - whereby jurors recollection of media coverage of crimes diminishes in the period leading up to the trial -  does exist.

But the report Are Juries Fair? says that a fifth of jurors find it difficult to put media coverage out of their minds.

Some jurors admitted to using the internet to look for information during trails. The report found little evidence of unfairness by juries.

Key points of the report, as regards the media, are:

• The fade factor exists. Most jurors that recalled media coverage of their case recalled coverage published during, not before, the trial. But a third of jurors on high profile cases recalled some pre-trial coverage.  
• Most jurors who recalled media coverage did not recall any emphasis in the coverage. 
• A fifth of jurors on high profile cases said it was difficult to put the media coverage out of their minds. 
• More jurors said they saw information on the internet during the trial than admitted looking for information on the internet during the trial. 
• More jurors on high profile cases admitted to looking for information about their case on the internet during trial than jurors in standard cases. 
•  Most jurors who looked for information on the internet during trial were over 30.

'No win, no fee' costs face 90 per cent cut

Looks like the 'no win, no fee' gravy train for lawyers may have hit the buffers. Success fees that lawyers can charge for winning defamation cases in no win, no fee agreements should be reduced from 100% to just 10%, Justice Secretary Jack Straw announced today.

The proposal aims to prevent court costs in defamation cases spiralling out of control, deterring journalists and writers from publishing articles which are in the public interest, or forcing them to settle rather than defend defamation actions. It will now be subject to a consultation period of four weeks.
The Justice Secretary said: "Freedom of expression and investigative journalism are fundamental protections to the democracy of this country. I have recently announced a review of the law of libel, with a working group to consider whether the law of libel, including the law relating to libel tourism, in England and Wales needs reform, and if so to make recommendations as to solutions.
"I am, however, aware of the growing concern about the high legal costs in defamation and some other publication cases brought under conditional fee agreements. Lawyers need to recover their costs and be rewarded for their efforts and the risks they undertake when providing people with access to justice in “no win, no fee” cases. But evidence suggests that the regular doubling of fees that currently takes place is simply not justified and the balance of costs between claimant and defendant needs to be reconsidered."