Could be a nice (if risky!) way of earning a few years’ income in one go, otherwise …

Mr Justice Eady may have got it horribly wrong in the Singh case, but I’d be wary of siding with all those who attack him. To me, privacy and libel raise very different issues, and the tabloid media have a very strong self-serving interest in attacking those who might place limits on their ability to intrude into people’s private lives.

Judges have to work within the law as it stands, building on previous precedents. So the particular criticisms in the second link seem a bit harsh – if the precedent is that he has to put it before a jury if it wouldn’t be perverse for them to see it as defamatory, then that’s what he has to do. If we want that to change, legislation is needed.

@PhDChem

Lawyers are very expensive, and I suspect that some courts are reluctant to further penalise unsuccessful plaintiffs. Much as we might see libel cases as sinister attempts to silence legitimate criticism, often the plaintiff will be responding to what they see as an unwarranted slur on their reputation. And in cases that come to court, the boundary between the two positions might be very blurred. Added to which, the true cost of defending a libel claim – in time, stress, and most importantly the need to finance the defence on the assumption that you will ultimately win – may be much larger than the directly attributable financial cost. If you can’t rely on the courts not to come to a perverse view (e.g. the Singh case), then you’re taking a huge financial gamble. It’s easier to cave. That’s why it’s critical that any reform requires a mediation phase before anything comes to court.

PhDChem – having followed some of these cases, the only explanation that I have been able to come up with is to reaffirm the old saying; The Law is an Ass. One or two judges seem determined to maintain that status quo, though get upset when criticized for doing so:

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/01/david-eady-privacy-trials-media

though if you read how determined that particular judge can be to make things hard for the defendant, you might find it hard to have much sympathy:

www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/dec/07/desmond-libel-law-ruling

The burden is then on jesroddy to use the justification defense – e.g. to prove that his statement was true and that he knew it to be true at the time he wrote it. If jesroddy can’t provide documentation of Ben G’s panda-eating, he is screwed.

You can see how they came up with a system like this, but there’s definitely something dodgy about the reverse burden of proof. Especially when, as previously mentioned, English judges have a tendency to focus on the most extreme possible interpretation of a statement.

Disclaimer: IANAL, I just read the wikipedia article. There’s also a good commentary by Jack of Kent.

I think – and tell me if I am wrong, that the English libel laws would say that the onus is on Ben G to prove in court that he doesn’t eat pandas for breakfast.

“Andy: Bobby called me a poo poo head!
Bobby: But you are a poo poo head
Teacher: Can you prove that?
Bobby: Yes, here’s some evidence”

we’d have very little problem in the vast majority of cases.

The big problem is that all the costs that Bobby incurs arguing and proving that Andy is a poo poo head generally fall on him to pay. Andy pays his own costs which can often amount to just about 1) quantifying his losses and 2) paying someone to represent him in court. People aren’t particularly bothered about saying true things about other people in case they’re found guilty of defamation, it’s the fines (if you lose) and costs that winning and losing incurs that chills them.

Yes of course – but as Ben explains, you have to be prepared to stump up hundreds of thousand of pounds for the privelige of showing you are speaking the truth – and when you have done so, you will not get a significant fraction of that money back.

So, next time you are issued with a libel writ where you can prove you speak the truth, what will you do?

I understand that Mike Harris at the Libel Reform coalition is working to sort out the problems as quickly as he can.
You’re right – it should be clear that when you sign up, you have indeed signed the petition.

And there should be an extra step where you choose to write to your MP.

He’s working through other feedback too.

Sile

Why not generate the letter and allow people to copy it as text, but don’t force them to send it?

Howard