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

Already registered?

Sign in now if you are already registered or a current subscriber. Or subscribe for unrestricted access to our digital editions and iPad and iPhone app.

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

Featured Jobs

Lead SAP Trainer CAMBRIDGE ASSESSMENT
Secretary LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE & TROPICAL MEDICINE (LSHTM)
Director of Portfolio Enhancement SOUTHAMPTON SOLENT UNIVERSITY
Pro Vice-Chancellor Student Experience SHEFFIELD HALLAM UNIVERSITY
Chief Operating Officer SHEFFIELD HALLAM UNIVERSITY

Most Commented

Elderly woman looking up at sky

A recent paper claims that the quality of researchers declines with age. Five senior scientists consider the data and how they’ve contributed through the years

A keyboard with a 'donate' key

Richard Budd mulls the logic of giving money to your alma mater

Otto illustration (5 May 2016)

Craig Brandist on the proletarianisation of a profession and how it leads to behaviours that could hobble higher education

Woman tearing up I can't sign

Schools and universities are increasingly looking at how improving personalities can boost social mobility. But in doing so, they may be forced to choose between teaching what is helpful, and what is true, says David Matthews

Door peephole painted as bomb ready to explode

It’s time to use technology to detect potential threats and worry less about outdated ideas of privacy, says Ron Iphofen