By Richard Chidwick - 19th July 2010
Opponents of the proposed Defamation Bill are like evil Lord of the Rings characters, according to a Labour MP.
Speaking during a Westminster Hall debate, Paul Farrelly, (Lab, Newcastle-under-Lyme) said the gathering opposition to reform of libel laws put him in mind of the struggle between good and evil in Tolikin's classic novel.
"It reminds me of a scene from 'The Lord of the Rings'," he said. "In which Sauron summons his 'Carter-U'Ruck-hai' and the Orcs, those 'Lawyers for Mordor Standards'," he said.
Farrelly famously had a run in with law firm Carter-Ruck, claiming they had attempted to gag him in Parliament.
But despite the apparent opposition he said libel and the internet was an area where there was some real consensus.
He said: "There is an urgent need to protect legitimate scientific and medical inquiry and honest opinion and comment.”
The debate was held days after justice minister Lord McNally revealed the new private members bill’s objectives, would seek to strike a fair balance between freedom of speech and reputation.
Farrelly also explained how UK libel law was having a detrimental effect on freedom of expression, and was a key reason for the government unveiling a new draft defamation bill.
This was a central concern for justice minister Jonathan Djanogly, who made clear the need to promote academic and scientific debate.
He also said the work of non governmental organisations and investigative journalism should be protected.
He said: "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".
"The previous government attempted a rushed and rather limited reform to limit costs in defamation cases only," he explained.
Turning to the so-called Reynolds defence for libel, he said this could provide a reliable defence for a defendant, often in the form of newspapers.
He added, this may be relied on even where the defendant cannot prove the truth of what has been published; provided he or she acted responsibly in all the circumstances.
"However, concerns have been expressed by non-governmental organisations, the scientific community with the lack of certainty over how the Reynolds defence applies outside the context of mainstream journalism," explained Djanogly.
"That has a somewhat chilling effect on freedom of expression and investigative reporting."
Farrelly said: "Libel tourism is another area on which there is increasing consensus, and that is increasingly connected to the law on the internet.
"The consensus from all those bodies is that we should tighten the legal procedure rules and throw out the abuse of our courts and laws."
Djanogly concluded: "The introduction of reforms to restrict the circumstances in which corporations could bring a claim would certainly be controversial, and would raise a number of legal and practical issues."
He used an example of competing companies who could be treated differently compared, to those where a company is taking legal action on a paper.
Furthermore, such provisions could affect certain corporate bodies, which are not strictly regarded as businesses such as academic institutions.
He added: "Also unclear is the extent of any problem in that area, and how any difficulties could best be addressed.
"We would need to consult on and consider the issue most carefully.
"We aim to publish our draft Bill for formal consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny in the New Year."
Speaking after the debate Farrelly made clear it often took time for private members bills to be passed, and this libel reform bill needed to be implemented soon and quickly.
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.