House of Lords Constitution Committee warns publishers may get insufficient protection under Defamation Bill
The House of Lord Constitution Committee has claimed that the Defamation Bill may not provide publishers with a ‘sufficiently robust and succinct defence’ against defamation claims on the basis that publication was in the public interest.
In its report on the Defamation Bill published today, ahead of the Committee stage in the House of Lords on Monday 17 December, the Committee questions whether clause 4 of the Bill adequately reflects the case law on ‘Reynolds privilege’, established by the Law Lords in 1999 Reynolds vs. Times Newspapers.
The report also considers the recommendations from the Lord Justice Leveson on the culture and practices of the press. The Committee believes the assurance of a genuinely independent and effective regulatory body, along with a speedy complaints-handling system and inexpensive arbitration, would help underwrite the case for a stronger public interest defence in defamation.
The Committee has however stressed it does not enter the ongoing debate as to whether the press regulator should have statutory underpinning. Adding that the House of Lords will want to consider the extent to which the Leveson recommendations would make recourse to the courts unnecessary.
Speaking of the report, Baroness Jay of Paddington, chairman of the House of Lords Constitution Committee, said: “Freedom of speech is a constitutional principle of the utmost importance. However, it has to be considered alongside the rule of law—which includes victims of abuse obtaining effective legal redress.
“It is important that journalists and publishers feel confident that they can draw attention to matters of public interest without fear of being sued for defamation. There must be occasions where one can publish without being damned. We are concerned that the Defamation Bill as currently drafted does not adequately replicate the defence for publishers known as Reynolds privilege.
“However, as the Leveson report has shown, it is vital that the public also have protection from the press when they are treated unfairly. If the regulatory and redress regime set out by Lord Justice Leveson is introduced it would provide a strong argument in favour of further enhancing the public interest defence in defamation cases.”
The Committee added that more detail should be included in the Bill in regards to proposed defence for website operators.