Libel law shake-up proposals published

[muriel_volestrangler]

The draft bill introduces new statutory defences to protect those writing about issues of public interest.

The current common law defences of "justification" and "fair comment" will be scrapped, replaced with new statutory defences of "truth" and "honest opinion".

There will be a new requirement in the bill that a statement must have caused, or be likely to cause, substantial harm to someone's reputation, if it is to be considered defamatory.

The government says the new laws will make it tougher for people to bring overseas claims which have little connection to the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12749302

Ken Clarke, the justice secretary, published a draft bill that includes a new "public interest" defence which can be used by defendants in defamation cases and a requirement that claims can demonstrate substantial harm before they can sue.

The bill will also signal an end to the use of juries in libel trials apart from in exceptional circumstances, and aims to end libel tourism by making it tougher to bring overseas claims which have little connection to the UK in the English courts.
...
The government has also begun a consultation on issues not covered by the draft bill, including responsibility for publication on the internet.

It will ask whether the law should be changed to give greater protection to secondary publishers such as internet service providers and discussion forms.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/15/libel-law-reforms

Sounds good - in theory ...

[dipsydoodle]

1. I can't remember what the issue was with "overseas claims"

Any ideas ?

[tjwmason]

2. In recent years there has been a growth of 'libel tourism'

Where claimants undertake legal action in whichever jurisdiction they consider has the greatest chance of success*. British libel law being in such a mess, they would frequently come here.

*Success here does not necessarily mean that a case is won through fair legal action, but that the opposing side is demolished (e.g., by backing down due to excess costs in defending).

[dipsydoodle]

3. Ta for that

.