Inclusion of defamation bill in Queen’s Speech represents a major step towards libel reform
The long-awaited defamation bill has been included in the Queen's Speech today. The announcement follows the publication of a draft bill last year. Andrew Terry, media law expert at international law firm Eversheds, comments.
The inclusion of the defamation bill in the Queen’s Speech was not a foregone conclusion and is a significant step on what has already been a long journey for those who have been calling for comprehensive libel reform. The process of review gathered pace in May 2010 with Lord Lester’s private member’s bill, followed by the Government’s draft defamation bill in March 2011, leading to joint committee recommendations and, finally, in March of this year, the government’s response to those recommendations.
Supporters of reform argue that libel laws in England & Wales are arcane, costly and overly Claimant friendly. One result, it is said, is the increase in “libel tourism” as claims are brought in the High Court in London even though they appear to have very little connection to this jurisdiction. There have also been calls for an end to the right of companies to bring libel claims, or at least a need to show an increased level of harm to reputation, and for a clearer approach to dealing with issues of defamation online, including the role of ISPs.
This is a complex and emotive area of law, built up from common law and statute over many years, and although this process has attracted relatively little attention in the wider press, especially once the Leveson inquiry started, it has been subject to immense scrutiny by many journalists (who must constantly deal with the risk of defamation claims), lawyers and other interest groups.
A successful journey’s end for libel reform is not guaranteed. Much will depend on the time allotted for hearing the bill and whether or not it becomes subsumed by the “Leveson tsunami”. And, as always, the devil is in the detail in terms of the actual changes to the current libel regime and whether the concerns of those calling for reform are addressed.