|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
England and Welsh libel and stuff
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, just a hack :-) And I've moved to a
country where it's harder to do investigative journalism than it is in many other parts of the world, because it's so much easier to get sued. So this information is provided in the public interest, and that includes the right-minded readers of this esteemed newsgroup. Those of you with at least a passing interest in the Armstrong vs. The Times case that is AFAIK still in progress may be interested to know that libel laws in the England and Wales are gradually being relaxed in favour of freedom of speech (or more specifically, freedom of the press). It's not a UK-wide thing, because in Scotland they are already a long way in that direction, perhaps even more so than the US. As I said, England and Wales are much easier places to sue for libel compared to the USA because the claimants don't have to prove tricky stuff like malice and reckless regard for the truth. I think last year there were 12 libel cases in the whole of the USA, seven of which went in favour of the defendant. In the UK, there were 200 cases, and it's a significantly smaller country. It's a little counter-intuitive, because a lot of people have the impression that the US is one of the most litigious places in the world. Disclaimer: not that that's a bad thing :-) Britain has (I believe) three courts dealing with common law: High Court, Court of Appeal, and House of Lords, the latter being the highest. Britain also adopted a human rights act in 1998, which allows for freedom of speech, but it's a qualified one. It doesn't give you the same freedoms as the USA's First Amendment, for example. But it does at least provide for it. In 1999, The Times successfully defended, using "qualified privelege", a libel suit against Albert Reynolds, who was the former Irish Taoisach. It went all the way to the House of Lords, who ruled in The Times' favour. It was seen as a significant landmark in favour of journalists and publishers who were publishing stuff "in the public interest", as long as it was done responsibly. Ref: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1999/45.html. Since then, quite a few defendants have tried using the qualified privelege defence, with mixed results (George Galloway won in the high court against The Telegraph, which used qualified privelege, in 2004). The Times used this in its defence against Armstrong, and it was first thrown out by the high court, but then allowed by the court of appeal (ref: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=...l05/jul30news). That gives The Times a stronger case. In October 2006 (see: http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/sto...20159,00.html), "Five law lords unanimously overturned high court and appeal court libel judgments against the Wall Street Journal Europe in December 2003 and quashed damages awards totalling £40,000 to a Saudi billionaire businessman, Mohammed Jameel, and his companies over an article which said the Saudi Arabian authorities were monitoring the bank accounts of prominent Saudis for evidence of supporting terrorism. "The judges ruled that the lower courts had been interpreting an earlier protective ruling in a case brought by the former Irish taoiseach Albert Reynolds too restrictively and set out the principles that should apply in future libel cases. "They held that where the topic of a media investigation was of public importance, relevant allegations that could not subsequently be proved true should not attract libel damages if they had been published responsibly." Jameel was partially vindicated, because although he didn't win his libel case, he did show that the WSJ published stuff that was untrue. So you can publish false, libellious statements, as long as you do so responsibly and in the public interest. Bear in mind that this ruling was only made recently. British book publishers have been, shall we say, reluctant to publish the Walsh/Ballester book in the UK (maybe a Scottish publisher would stick its neck out). But I'm not sure whether that this ruling will change that reluctance, despite the above. *Point of (slight) interest: the high court judge who tossed out the defence of "qualified privelege" in the Reynolds/Times, Galloway/Telegraph and Armstrong/Times cases was the same on each occasion: Justice David Eady. I'm not going into the SCA vs Armstrong case in the USA, because that wasn't a libel case. Also, Armstrong was the defendant, not the claimant. Now I wish to adjourn to the bar. Jeff |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
England and Welsh libel and stuff
Jeff Jones wrote:
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, just a hack :-) And I've moved to a country where it's harder to do investigative journalism than it is in many other parts of the world, because it's so much easier to get sued. So this information is provided in the public interest, and that includes the right-minded readers of this esteemed newsgroup. Those of you with at least a passing interest in the Armstrong vs. The Times case that is AFAIK still in progress may be interested to know that libel laws in the England and Wales are gradually being relaxed in favour of freedom of speech (or more specifically, freedom of the press). It's not a UK-wide thing, because in Scotland they are already a long way in that direction, perhaps even more so than the US. As I said, England and Wales are much easier places to sue for libel compared to the USA because the claimants don't have to prove tricky stuff like malice and reckless regard for the truth. I think last year there were 12 libel cases in the whole of the USA, seven of which went in favour of the defendant. In the UK, there were 200 cases, and it's a significantly smaller country. It's a little counter-intuitive, because a lot of people have the impression that the US is one of the most litigious places in the world. Disclaimer: not that that's a bad thing :-) Britain has (I believe) three courts dealing with common law: High Court, Court of Appeal, and House of Lords, the latter being the highest. Britain also adopted a human rights act in 1998, which allows for freedom of speech, but it's a qualified one. It doesn't give you the same freedoms as the USA's First Amendment, for example. But it does at least provide for it. In 1999, The Times successfully defended, using "qualified privelege", a libel suit against Albert Reynolds, who was the former Irish Taoisach. It went all the way to the House of Lords, who ruled in The Times' favour. It was seen as a significant landmark in favour of journalists and publishers who were publishing stuff "in the public interest", as long as it was done responsibly. Ref: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1999/45.html. Since then, quite a few defendants have tried using the qualified privelege defence, with mixed results (George Galloway won in the high court against The Telegraph, which used qualified privelege, in 2004). The Times used this in its defence against Armstrong, and it was first thrown out by the high court, but then allowed by the court of appeal (ref: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=...l05/jul30news). That gives The Times a stronger case. In October 2006 (see: http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/sto...20159,00.html), "Five law lords unanimously overturned high court and appeal court libel judgments against the Wall Street Journal Europe in December 2003 and quashed damages awards totalling £40,000 to a Saudi billionaire businessman, Mohammed Jameel, and his companies over an article which said the Saudi Arabian authorities were monitoring the bank accounts of prominent Saudis for evidence of supporting terrorism. "The judges ruled that the lower courts had been interpreting an earlier protective ruling in a case brought by the former Irish taoiseach Albert Reynolds too restrictively and set out the principles that should apply in future libel cases. "They held that where the topic of a media investigation was of public importance, relevant allegations that could not subsequently be proved true should not attract libel damages if they had been published responsibly." Jameel was partially vindicated, because although he didn't win his libel case, he did show that the WSJ published stuff that was untrue. So you can publish false, libellious statements, as long as you do so responsibly and in the public interest. Bear in mind that this ruling was only made recently. British book publishers have been, shall we say, reluctant to publish the Walsh/Ballester book in the UK (maybe a Scottish publisher would stick its neck out). But I'm not sure whether that this ruling will change that reluctance, despite the above. *Point of (slight) interest: the high court judge who tossed out the defence of "qualified privelege" in the Reynolds/Times, Galloway/Telegraph and Armstrong/Times cases was the same on each occasion: Justice David Eady. I'm not going into the SCA vs Armstrong case in the USA, because that wasn't a libel case. Also, Armstrong was the defendant, not the claimant. Now I wish to adjourn to the bar. Jeff Thanks for this. Good to be reminded how different legal standards and thresholds for proof can vary even in the west. Steve |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
England and Welsh libel and stuff
Jeff Jones wrote: stuff Argh, spotted two typos: should be privilege + libellous |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
England and Welsh libel and stuff
Jeff Jones wrote: Those of you with at least a passing interest in the Armstrong vs. The Times case that is AFAIK still in progress may be interested to know Double argh!! Now, had I been paying attention while covering the Tour last year, I would have remembered this: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...ul06/jul01news (scroll to the bottom). The Armstrong v The Times case was settled out of court before it went any further. So it seems that The Times' "qualified privilege" defence wasn't considered strong enough to override "justification", and there was no way that The Times was going to try to defend on those grounds because they couldn't prove that Lance Armstrong took drugs. So the rest of what I wrote can be ignored until a similar case arises, and I will retire to the bar for the foreseeable Future. Jeff, non-lawyer and hack-at-large |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
England and Welsh libel and stuff
"Jeff Jones" wrote in message ups.com... Jeff Jones wrote: .... I will retire to the bar for the foreseeable Future. Jeff, non-lawyer and hack-at-large May I join you there ? What is on tap ? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
England and Welsh libel and stuff
Steve wrote:
"Jeff Jones" wrote in message ups.com... Jeff Jones wrote: ... I will retire to the bar for the foreseeable Future. Jeff, non-lawyer and hack-at-large May I join you there ? What is on tap ? Sure you can. I'll interpret 'What's on tap?' to mean what's actually drinkable. My response is anything except English beer, which is crap for all values of dishwater. This is my opinion and I'm prepared to defend it on the basis of "fair comment", even though a right-minded jury could conceivably be convinced on the grounds of "justification" on the balance of evidence. My legal team advises me to settle for several pints of Staropramen and/or Leffe in proper glasses, plus costs. Jeff |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
England and Welsh libel and stuff
Jeff Jones wrote:
Sure you can. I'll interpret 'What's on tap?' to mean what's actually drinkable. My response is anything except English beer, which is crap for all values of dishwater. This is my opinion and I'm prepared to defend it on the basis of "fair comment", even though a right-minded jury could conceivably be convinced on the grounds of "justification" on the balance of evidence. Is OK, the English say the same about Australian beer. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
England and Welsh libel and stuff
Stu Fleming wrote: Jeff Jones wrote: Sure you can. I'll interpret 'What's on tap?' to mean what's actually drinkable. My response is anything except English beer, which is crap for all values of dishwater. This is my opinion and I'm prepared to defend it on the basis of "fair comment", even though a right-minded jury could conceivably be convinced on the grounds of "justification" on the balance of evidence. Is OK, the English say the same about Australian beer. I am in accord with that too. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
England and Welsh libel and stuff
Jeff Jones wrote:
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, just a hack :-) And I've moved to a country where it's harder to do investigative journalism than it is in many other parts of the world, because it's so much easier to get sued. So this information is provided in the public interest, and that includes the right-minded readers of this esteemed newsgroup. Those of you with at least a passing interest in the Armstrong vs. The Times case that is AFAIK still in progress may be interested to know that libel laws in the England and Wales are gradually being relaxed in favour of freedom of speech (or more specifically, freedom of the press). It's not a UK-wide thing, because in Scotland they are already a long way in that direction, perhaps even more so than the US. As I said, England and Wales are much easier places to sue for libel compared to the USA because the claimants don't have to prove tricky stuff like malice and reckless regard for the truth. I think last year there were 12 libel cases in the whole of the USA, seven of which went in favour of the defendant. In the UK, there were 200 cases, and it's a significantly smaller country. It's a little counter-intuitive, because a lot of people have the impression that the US is one of the most litigious places in the world. Disclaimer: not that that's a bad thing :-) Britain has (I believe) three courts dealing with common law: High Court, Court of Appeal, and House of Lords, the latter being the highest. Britain also adopted a human rights act in 1998, which allows for freedom of speech, but it's a qualified one. It doesn't give you the same freedoms as the USA's First Amendment, for example. But it does at least provide for it. In 1999, The Times successfully defended, using "qualified privelege", a libel suit against Albert Reynolds, who was the former Irish Taoisach. It went all the way to the House of Lords, who ruled in The Times' favour. It was seen as a significant landmark in favour of journalists and publishers who were publishing stuff "in the public interest", as long as it was done responsibly. Ref: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1999/45.html. Since then, quite a few defendants have tried using the qualified privelege defence, with mixed results (George Galloway won in the high court against The Telegraph, which used qualified privelege, in 2004). The Times used this in its defence against Armstrong, and it was first thrown out by the high court, but then allowed by the court of appeal (ref: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=...l05/jul30news). That gives The Times a stronger case. In October 2006 (see: http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/sto...20159,00.html), "Five law lords unanimously overturned high court and appeal court libel judgments against the Wall Street Journal Europe in December 2003 and quashed damages awards totalling £40,000 to a Saudi billionaire businessman, Mohammed Jameel, and his companies over an article which said the Saudi Arabian authorities were monitoring the bank accounts of prominent Saudis for evidence of supporting terrorism. "The judges ruled that the lower courts had been interpreting an earlier protective ruling in a case brought by the former Irish taoiseach Albert Reynolds too restrictively and set out the principles that should apply in future libel cases. "They held that where the topic of a media investigation was of public importance, relevant allegations that could not subsequently be proved true should not attract libel damages if they had been published responsibly." Jameel was partially vindicated, because although he didn't win his libel case, he did show that the WSJ published stuff that was untrue. So you can publish false, libellious statements, as long as you do so responsibly and in the public interest. Bear in mind that this ruling was only made recently. British book publishers have been, shall we say, reluctant to publish the Walsh/Ballester book in the UK (maybe a Scottish publisher would stick its neck out). But I'm not sure whether that this ruling will change that reluctance, despite the above. *Point of (slight) interest: the high court judge who tossed out the defence of "qualified privelege" in the Reynolds/Times, Galloway/Telegraph and Armstrong/Times cases was the same on each occasion: Justice David Eady. I'm not going into the SCA vs Armstrong case in the USA, because that wasn't a libel case. Also, Armstrong was the defendant, not the claimant. Now I wish to adjourn to the bar. Jeff Armstrong was the plaintiff in the Armstrong v. SCA arbitration case, not the defendant. I don't see how LA Confidentail is libelous to Lance. It simply contains statements and observations by others. How is that libelous? Give me one example of a libelous statement in the book. One. Magilla |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
England and Welsh libel and stuff
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Vaughters, Andreu, The Media and Libel | [email protected] | Racing | 5 | October 24th 06 04:23 PM |
Times Libel Action? | B. Lafferty | Racing | 3 | November 13th 05 04:50 PM |
UK Libel Law & Freedom of Expression | B Lafferty | Racing | 14 | February 15th 05 04:40 PM |
Welsh Climbs | Simonb | UK | 4 | July 27th 04 05:45 PM |
To our Welsh cyclists | dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers | UK | 2 | March 2nd 04 07:41 AM |