This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/mar/05/defamation-bill-leveson-clause
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Defamation bill set to be lost due to 'Leveson' clause | Defamation bill set to be lost due to 'Leveson' clause |
| (6 months later) | |
| David Cameron is declining to allow a bill that would tackle London's status as the libel capital of the world a chance to make it to the statute book because of last-minute amendments inserted by a Labour peer aimed at establishing a Leveson law through the back door. | David Cameron is declining to allow a bill that would tackle London's status as the libel capital of the world a chance to make it to the statute book because of last-minute amendments inserted by a Labour peer aimed at establishing a Leveson law through the back door. |
| Conservative sources say the prime minister has made it clear he will not allow the defamation bill to return to the House of Commons unless the Liberal Democrats support efforts to remove amendments inserted by Lord Puttnam in the Lords last month. | Conservative sources say the prime minister has made it clear he will not allow the defamation bill to return to the House of Commons unless the Liberal Democrats support efforts to remove amendments inserted by Lord Puttnam in the Lords last month. |
| However, Liberal Democrat sources said the only place the Leveson regulation could be discussed was in all-party talks, and the resulting impasse means the defamation bill has not been "slated" to return to the lower house and complete its passage through parliament. | However, Liberal Democrat sources said the only place the Leveson regulation could be discussed was in all-party talks, and the resulting impasse means the defamation bill has not been "slated" to return to the lower house and complete its passage through parliament. |
| John Whittingdale, the Tory chairman of the culture, media and sport select committee, said: "It will be a tragedy if an important and badly needed piece of legislation is lost as a result of political gamesmanship by the House of Lords." | John Whittingdale, the Tory chairman of the culture, media and sport select committee, said: "It will be a tragedy if an important and badly needed piece of legislation is lost as a result of political gamesmanship by the House of Lords." |
| Although there is cross-party support to reform the libel laws, the defamation bill has been caught up in the cross-party dispute over how to respond to the Leveson report. David Cameron set himself against introducing a press reform bill in response to Leveson, who last year proposed that a revamped Press Complaints Commission be audited by a statutory body. | Although there is cross-party support to reform the libel laws, the defamation bill has been caught up in the cross-party dispute over how to respond to the Leveson report. David Cameron set himself against introducing a press reform bill in response to Leveson, who last year proposed that a revamped Press Complaints Commission be audited by a statutory body. |
| But with Labour and the Liberal Democrats supporting statute and the Conservatives taking time to develop an alternative model, the Lords passed Puttnam's amendment, which would establish a statutory recognition body and an arbiter for disputes. | But with Labour and the Liberal Democrats supporting statute and the Conservatives taking time to develop an alternative model, the Lords passed Puttnam's amendment, which would establish a statutory recognition body and an arbiter for disputes. |
| The last-minute "hijacking" of the bill has been described as a disgrace by libel reform campaigners. They say three and half years of lobbying and parliamentary time spent on the effort to loosen England's 19th century libel laws could now be jettisoned. | The last-minute "hijacking" of the bill has been described as a disgrace by libel reform campaigners. They say three and half years of lobbying and parliamentary time spent on the effort to loosen England's 19th century libel laws could now be jettisoned. |
| Lord Lester, the human rights lawyer who initiated the reforms, said if the bill was not returned to the Commons within the next 10 days it was unlikely to survive into the next legislative calendar. | Lord Lester, the human rights lawyer who initiated the reforms, said if the bill was not returned to the Commons within the next 10 days it was unlikely to survive into the next legislative calendar. |
| "This is a race against time," he said. "I would feel deeply frustrated and disappointed if this doesn't make it and I think that the public should punish whoever is responsible for killing the bill at the next election." | "This is a race against time," he said. "I would feel deeply frustrated and disappointed if this doesn't make it and I think that the public should punish whoever is responsible for killing the bill at the next election." |
| Labour insisted the only reason Puttnam made the amendments was because the Tories had dragged their heels on Leveson. | Labour insisted the only reason Puttnam made the amendments was because the Tories had dragged their heels on Leveson. |
| "We reject the allegation we hijacked the defamation bill," a spokeswoman said. "There was a cross-party vote and the Lords sent out a strong signal that they wanted to see progress on Leveson." | "We reject the allegation we hijacked the defamation bill," a spokeswoman said. "There was a cross-party vote and the Lords sent out a strong signal that they wanted to see progress on Leveson." |
| The Libel Reform Group said it was unfair that the bill, which had been "through three public consultations, two working groups and seven parliamentary debates", was now threatened by "political manoeuvring" and Puttnam's amendment. | The Libel Reform Group said it was unfair that the bill, which had been "through three public consultations, two working groups and seven parliamentary debates", was now threatened by "political manoeuvring" and Puttnam's amendment. |
| "This is not about newspapers," Lester said. "This is about protecting the right to a good reputation and the rights to freedom of speech. The press are the eyes and ears of the public and if they are chilled the people who suffer are not the communicators but the public at large." He said it was a historic chance to reform laws which had not been touched since 1842 when men were encouraged to use the courts rather than pistols to protect their reputation. | "This is not about newspapers," Lester said. "This is about protecting the right to a good reputation and the rights to freedom of speech. The press are the eyes and ears of the public and if they are chilled the people who suffer are not the communicators but the public at large." He said it was a historic chance to reform laws which had not been touched since 1842 when men were encouraged to use the courts rather than pistols to protect their reputation. |
| Along with other campaigners, including Index on Censorship and English Pen, Lester started work on the bill following a series of revelations that the threat of libel action had silenced scientists, doctors, biographers and human rights activists. | Along with other campaigners, including Index on Censorship and English Pen, Lester started work on the bill following a series of revelations that the threat of libel action had silenced scientists, doctors, biographers and human rights activists. |
| One case that prompted a review of the law involved a Shropshire cardiologist, Dr Peter Wilmshurst, who was sued by a US firm manufacturing medical devices over comments he made to the press questioning the firm's findings of a clinical trial of one of their products. | One case that prompted a review of the law involved a Shropshire cardiologist, Dr Peter Wilmshurst, who was sued by a US firm manufacturing medical devices over comments he made to the press questioning the firm's findings of a clinical trial of one of their products. |
| Libel tourism has also put the law under the spotlight. In one case a Ukrainian energy tycoon ranked by Forbes as one the world's richest men has launched successful actions against two Ukrainian internet journals. | Libel tourism has also put the law under the spotlight. In one case a Ukrainian energy tycoon ranked by Forbes as one the world's richest men has launched successful actions against two Ukrainian internet journals. |
| Such was the concern in the US that English libel laws were harming free speech that two years ago Barack Obama signed the Speech Act into law, protecting US writers from foreign libel judgments. | Such was the concern in the US that English libel laws were harming free speech that two years ago Barack Obama signed the Speech Act into law, protecting US writers from foreign libel judgments. |
| The bill, if passed, would mean wholesale changes to the existing law and help outlaw libel tourism. It would also bar anyone from bringing a libel action unless they could show serious harm had been done. Corporate bodies would not be able to bring a claim unless they could show substantial financial loss. | The bill, if passed, would mean wholesale changes to the existing law and help outlaw libel tourism. It would also bar anyone from bringing a libel action unless they could show serious harm had been done. Corporate bodies would not be able to bring a claim unless they could show substantial financial loss. |
| It would also, for the first time, turn fair comment into a defence of honest opinion making it easier for judges and juries to understand the law, said Lester, who cited a case he defended in Belfast in which a jury found a food critic's review defamatory. "The jury and judge muddled up honest opinion and truth," he said. | It would also, for the first time, turn fair comment into a defence of honest opinion making it easier for judges and juries to understand the law, said Lester, who cited a case he defended in Belfast in which a jury found a food critic's review defamatory. "The jury and judge muddled up honest opinion and truth," he said. |
| • This article was amended on 4 April 2013. The original suggested that a case in February 2013 – in which an Ethiopian billionaire took a fellow Ethiopian, Elias Kifle, who lives in the US, to court in London and was awarded £180,000 against him for comments made on a website he runs – was an instance of "libel tourism". That was incorrect. In his judgment on that case, Mr Justice Eady said: "This case is not an example of so-called 'libel tourism'." | • This article was amended on 4 April 2013. The original suggested that a case in February 2013 – in which an Ethiopian billionaire took a fellow Ethiopian, Elias Kifle, who lives in the US, to court in London and was awarded £180,000 against him for comments made on a website he runs – was an instance of "libel tourism". That was incorrect. In his judgment on that case, Mr Justice Eady said: "This case is not an example of so-called 'libel tourism'." |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |