Changing the law on libel

Will the Defamation Bill protect robust debate in the UK?

The Media Society recently debated the rights and wrongs of the Bill (published on 15 March 2011). Although the panel came from different areas - journalism, media law and academia - there was plenty of agreement, making the discussion more forensic analysis than verbal point-scoring. So, does the Bill strike the right balance between freedom of speech and the protection of reputation?

Of course, opinions varied. The science journalist Simon Singh wanted the Bill to go further. UCL law professor Eric Barendt, with reference to EM Forster's book Two Cheers for Democracy, said he would give it one and-a-half cheers. Media lawyer Mark Stephens described it as "crap". While the media law consultant Alastair Brett felt that, if used intelligently, it could be very effective.

So this was hardly a ringing endorsement for the view of the Bill as radical reform. What did become clear throughout the discussion was that, for the Bill to work, clarity is needed on several issues:

- Above all, there's a need to simplify procedures and cut costs. Simon Singh spoke of being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association. His case took nearly three years and cost half a million pounds, something that, if this Bill is to be deemed a success, he says surely can't be acceptable.

- Libel tourism. Mark Stephens called it an enormous embarrassment and shame on the UK that it has become the libel capital of the world. Professor Barendt felt the new Bill begins to address this but needs clearer drafting.

- Corporate libel. None of the panel thought it acceptable that a company, body or organisation should be able to sue for libel. There was consensus that reputation is a human right, not a business one.

- Simple cases should not get to court. Alastair Brett was adamant that, through mediation, most libel cases could be dealt with quickly and easily with a correction or right to reply.

- The burden of proof should be changed from the defendant to the claimant.

- Clarification of public interest and the Reynolds Defence.

- The need to address libel and social media. Mark Stephens and Alastair Brett saw this as the biggest growth area of defamation.

There didn't seem to be any doubt that the Defamation Bill is seen as a step forward, but, as the points above make clear, one that is a start rather than an end product.

Only in time will we be able to judge whether this is a radical reform or missed opportunity, and whether it successfully strikes the right balance between freedom of speech and the right to protect one's reputation.

The Media Society 'Defamation Debate: Radical Reform or Missed Opportunity?' was chaired by John Battle, Head of Compliance at ITN. On the panel were Simon Singh, science journalist, author and producer; Professor Eric Barendt, Goodman Professor of Media Law, University College London; Mark Stephens, partner, Finer Stephens Innocent; and Alastair Brett, director, Early Resolution.