A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Racing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

England and Welsh libel and stuff



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 11th 07, 10:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Jeff Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 121
Default 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  
Old January 12th 07, 04:52 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Steven Bornfeld
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 339
Default 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  
Old January 12th 07, 08:11 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Jeff Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 121
Default England and Welsh libel and stuff


Jeff Jones wrote:

stuff

Argh, spotted two typos: should be privilege + libellous

  #4  
Old January 12th 07, 03:33 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Jeff Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 121
Default 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  
Old January 12th 07, 09:45 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default 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  
Old January 12th 07, 10:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Jeff Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 121
Default 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  
Old January 12th 07, 11:46 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Stu Fleming
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 317
Default 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  
Old January 13th 07, 09:27 AM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
Jeff Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 121
Default 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  
Old January 13th 07, 11:14 PM posted to rec.bicycles.racing
MagillaGorilla
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 633
Default 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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 05:50 PM
UK Libel Law & Freedom of Expression B Lafferty Racing 14 February 15th 05 05:40 PM
Welsh Climbs Simonb UK 4 July 27th 04 05:45 PM
To our Welsh cyclists dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers UK 2 March 2nd 04 08:41 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.