here - United Kingdom Parliament

933 Libel Law
1 DECEMBER 2010
Libel Law
934
His Holiness v. Singh. He has been accused by a sex cult
leader in the Sikh tradition of libel, and it has taken up
four years of his life and thousands of pounds to
defend his claim in a religious dispute that, in my view,
is not able to be decided by the courts.
Mr Davis: The hon. Lady is entirely right. I used
science and medicine to demonstrate the starker effects
of “lawfare”, but she has demonstrated one of the
reasons why we debated the law on religious hatred: to
allow unfettered discussion of religion, which is another
great tradition of British democracy. I apologise to her
constituent because I think of his case as Singh II, but it
is just as important as the Singh case I cited, because
both demonstrate only too clearly that we must get a
grip on British libel law to prevent it damaging every
aspect of our culture and tradition of free speech.
That brings me to what we should do. Regrettably,
there is no single, simple solution. This week is the first
anniversary of the Libel Reform Campaign, which
encompasses campaigning organisations such as PEN,
Index on Censorship, Sense About Science and others.
There are a variety of issues that we need to address.
The cost of defending libel cases should be brought
down. One step would be not to remove jury trial, but
to introduce a tribunal process to deal with all but the
most serious cases. The Minister might also care to tell
us about his Green Paper—published a few weeks ago, I
think—in which he talks about contingent fee arrangements
and their possible reform, which might be another way
of reducing costs. The law should focus on protecting
individual reputation, without allowing heavy-handed
commercial intimidation. One step towards that might
be not to allow commercial companies above a certain
size—in fact, really rather a small size—to bring such
suits unless they can, in advance, demonstrate financial
damage.
The public interest defence—again, this is something
that the hon. Lady will be interested in—is too vague
and unhelpful to authors of legitimate criticism. A
stronger and clearer defence than that provided by the
so-called Reynolds defence should be instituted. In
particular, there should be a broader definition of what
constitutes fair comment. In the light of what I have
said about scientific and medical concerns, such a definition
should be designed to exclude scientific and medical
dispute from the courts completely. There should be
intelligent limits on what constitutes multiple publication.
For a court case to be brought in Britain, a significant
proportion—certainly more than 10%—of the publication
should have been in Britain. As the House can see, there
are many proposals—I have given only a short list—that
need to be considered. I should like the Minister to
confirm that the Government will be introducing a Bill
in 2011; that he will consult Index on Censorship, PEN,
Sense About Science and other campaigners before
publishing it; and that the Government will correct this
unintended and unwanted systemic failure in our judicial
system.
I shall finish by quoting the Appeal Court judges in
the Simon Singh ruling. Speaking about the words used
by Simon Singh in his criticism of the chiropractors,
they said that his
“opinion may be mistaken, but to allow the party which has been
denounced…to compel its author to prove in court what he has
asserted by way of argument is to invite the court to become an
Orwellian ministry of truth.”
The judges went on to quote Milton, writing about his
visit to Italy, from 1683 to 1689:
“I have sat among their learned men…and been counted
happy to be born in such a place of philosophic freedom, as they
supposed England was, while themselves did nothing but bemoan
the servile condition into which learning among them was
brought…that nothing had been there written now these many
years but flattery and fustian. There it was…I found and visited
the famous Galileo, grown old a prisoner of the Inquisition, for
thinking in astronomy otherwise than the Franciscan and Dominican
licensers thought.”
When the judges had finished quoting Milton, they
said:
“That is a pass to which we ought not to come again.”
I say to the Minister: it is a pass that the coalition
Government ought not to allow to come again. To
achieve that, we need clearly thought through and thorough
reform of this bad law, to put free speech back at the
pinnacle of public life in Britain.
7.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice
(Mr Jonathan Djanogly): I am grateful to my right hon.
Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden
(Mr Davis) for securing today’s debate on such an
important and contemporary issue. Let me start by
confirming that the Government are firmly committed
to reviewing the law on defamation in order to protect
free speech, and that is reflected in our coalition agreement.
My noble Friend Lord McNally confirmed that
commitment in July by announcing on behalf of the
Government that we will publish a draft defamation
Bill for consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny in the
first Session of this Parliament, with a view to introducing
a substantive Bill as soon thereafter as parliamentary
time allows.
Our core aim in reviewing the law is to ensure that
responsible journalism, academic and scientific debate
and the valuable work of non-governmental organisations
are properly protected, and that a fair balance is struck
between freedom of expression and the protection of
reputation. We want to ensure that the right balance is
achieved, so that people who have been defamed are
able to take action to protect their reputation where
appropriate, but that free speech is not unjustifiably
impeded.
Ensuring that the right balance is struck is a difficult
and sensitive exercise. It raises complex issues on which
a wide range of differing views are likely to be held. In
recognition of that, I can confirm to my right hon.
Friend that we believe that any reform proposals will
need to be the subject of extensive consultation, and
that publication of a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny,
together with a full public consultation, represents the
most effective approach to achieving substantive provisions
that focus on core issues of concern where legislation
can make a real difference.
Since Lord McNally’s announcement, the Ministry
of Justice held informal discussions with a range of
people and organisations with an interest in defamation
law to ensure that their views are taken into account.
These included: non-governmental organisations and
libel reform campaigners; claimant representatives and
members of the legal profession; representatives of the
media and the publishing industry; internet service
providers and other internet-based organisations; and