Speaking at the event were Dominic Grieve from the Conservatives, Evan Harris from the Liberal Democrats and Labour’s Michael Wills.
This week’s New Statesman features an interview with Justice Secretary Jack Straw. NS editor Jason Cowley writes:
Straw told me he is determined to introduce immediate and substantive reform. He is drawing up proposals to “introduce a radically reduced cap on the level of excessive success fees in defamation cases”. He would not confirm what the exact cap will be, though reformers hope it may be as low as, say, 10 per cent. At present, success fees can be as high as 100 per cent of costs. “Our libel laws are having a chilling effect. By definition, it’s not hitting the most profitable international media groups, News International or Associated Newspapers, though it’s not good news for them. It is hitting the press vital to our democracy but whose finances are much more difficult, and that includes magazines, one or two of the nationals, and regional and local newspapers. That’s why I will be changing the law on defamation costs . . . and I’m anxious to get ahead on this.”
It’s encouraging that Straw is talking seriously about this, but, as with his counterpart Dominic Grieve, his focus seems to be on the expense of the libel courts. While there is no doubt expense is a massive issue, it is worth restating: people sue here not only because they can win lots of money, but also because they have a very, very good chance of winning, as so many factors are weighted in the plaintiff’s favour.
Lowering the expense of libel cases may allow for greater access to the courts for ordinary people, and give people a greater chance of mounting a defence (and indeed a complaint), but it won’t necessarily make the courts themselves more just.
This morning’s Today programme featured Tracey Brown of Sense About Science (a valued partner organisation in the Libel Reform Campaign), cardiologist and libel tourism victim Peter Wilmshurst, and Shadow Justice Secretary Dominic Grieve.
You can listen to it all here (07.37 for Tracey, 08.48 for Wilmshurst and Grieve).
Worryingly, Dominic Grieve doesn’t seem to think there’s anything wrong with English libel laws, besides the expense. While expense is a serious concern, it is by no means the main one, as Grieve claims. He posits that people sue in London because of the potential earnings. But this would seem to miss the point: the earnings are attractive, but it is the favourable prospect of winning that makes it worth bringing a case: it is, currently, not a huge gamble to bring a defamation case.
Addressing the specific case of Peter Wilmshurst, Grieve said it was “remarkable” that someone had “chosen” to sue the cardiologist in England. Sadly, it is not remarkable that NMT has “chosen” to bring a suit against Wilmshurst in London. What is remarkable that NMT can bring the suit here.
On libel tourism, Grieve went on to say that if a foreign-published libel is “widely reproduced” in the UK, then a person should have a right to sue: well, quite. But no one, at least not Index on Censorship, English Pen or Sense About Science, has suggested otherwise. The key word is “widely”, a question addressed in Index and PEN’s report.
With the Lib Dems committed to reform, and Labour’s Jack Straw at least making positive noises, isn’t it time the Conservatives started taking libel seriously?