Libel reforms set to become law

A bill to reform the libel system in England and Wales is set to become law after completing its passage through the Houses of Parliament.

April 24, 2013

 

The Defamation Bill was approved by the House of Commons on 24 April following the passing of final amendments in the House of Lords on 23 April.

The campaign to reform libel laws began in 2009, with science writers, academics, and the editors of the journals Nature and the BMJ making up some of the most prominent advocates.

As well as updating the law for the internet age, campaigners say the bill – which will become the Defamation Act 2013 once it receives Royal Assent - will give a stronger public interest defence in libel claims and bolster protection for academic publications.

It is also hoped that the change will rebalance the power between big companies and individuals, reducing libel’s “chilling” self-censorship effect by forcing companies to prove financial damages in order to be able to apply to sue.

This crucial part of the bill – the requirement that companies demonstrate actual or likely substantial financial loss when they sue – was debated until the end.

After backing an amendment to remove the requirement from the bill in the Commons, the government later changed their stance and backed a similar requirement in the House of Lords, which was approved on 23 April.

However the Lords also voted to reject an amendment that would have barred corporations from suing in relation to their delivery of contracted public services. 

Jo Glanville, director of the free expression campaign group English PEN said that, taken together, the provisions in the law would mean “that there is a wider space for free expression”.

“We hope more people, whether they are investigative journalists, bloggers or NGOs, will be emboldened to speak truth to power as a result,” she added.

Cases that sparked the campaign, which garnered considerable public backing, included that of science writer Simon Singh. He was sued by the British Chiropractic Association for saying they “happily promote bogus treatments” in a 2008 article, a case they later dropped.

Cardiologist Peter Wilmhurst also became a cause celebre having been sued by US company NMT Medical for questioning the safety of one of its heart devices at an academic conference.

elizabeth.gibney@tsleducation.com

You've reached your article limit

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Reader's comments (1)

What, now, will become of the wasteful six-figure cost lawsuit by Salford University against Gary Paul Duke? Having had the case already dismissed, the University has promised to appeal the matter. Will they throw more money at the case, or will this new law put a stop once and for all to their profligate spending of public resources?

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most Commented

Laurel and Hardy sawing a plank of wood

Working with other academics can be tricky so follow some key rules, say Kevin O'Gorman and Robert MacIntosh

Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford will host a homeopathy conference next month

Charity says Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford is ‘naive’ to hire out its premises for event

women leapfrog. Vintage

Robert MacIntosh and Kevin O’Gorman offer advice on climbing the career ladder

Woman pulling blind down over an eye
Liz Morrish reflects on why she chose to tackle the failings of the neoliberal academy from the outside
White cliffs of Dover

From Australia to Singapore, David Matthews and John Elmes weigh the pros and cons of likely destinations