Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T22:56:01.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reforming Libel Law: The Public Law Dimension

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Ian Loveland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The British press has lately been awash with stories of libel actions commenced by MPs against newspapers which have published critical accounts of their behaviour. Rupert Allason has been the most assiduous litigator,1 but he has not ploughed a lone furrow. David Ashby's ill-fated action against the Sunday Times and Neil Hamilton's aborted case against the Guardian are the most memorable cases,2 but others come quickly to mind. Jonathan Aitken is pursuing actions against the Guardian which led to his resignation from the Cabinet in 1994, while Peter Bottomley recovered some £40,000 against the Sunday Express for an article accusing him of “fraternising” with Sinn Fein.3 Paddy Ashdown acted promptly against a local paper which aired ludicrous allegations about his personal life.4 Labour's Keith Vaz announced he would sue both the Sun and the Guardian for alleging that he favoured segregationist housing policies, and his colleague George Howarth accepted damages from the Guardian over an article falsely accusing him of drunkenness.5

Type
Article
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , July 1997 , pp. 561 - 585
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See Jenkins, R., “Tory MP Left with £250,000 Bill for Blair Aide Case”, The Times, 3 May. 1996.Google Scholar

2. Ashby's case received substantial coverage in both the tabloid and broadsheet press for a fortnight in Nov. and Dec. 1995. For a (perhaps less than entirely impartial) overview see Alderson, A., “The Gambler who Lost it All”, Sunday Times, 24 12. 1995.Google Scholar See also Coles, J., “Estranged Bedfellows”, Guardian, 20 12. 1995.Google Scholar

3. Pallister, D.,“Aitken Accuses Ex-Colleague of ‘Fantasy’ over Arms Sales”, Guardian, 7 03. 1996Google Scholar; Wood, N., “Tories New Spin Doctor Co-Wrote Libellous Story”, The Times, 20 12. 1995.Google Scholar

4. Gibbs, G., “Ashdown Sues Over ‘Sex Smear’”, Guardian, 6 02. 1996.Google Scholar

5. Sherman, J. and Lansdale, J., “MP Must Answer Racism Accusation”, The Times, 1 12. 1995Google Scholar; Bosely, S., “Shadow Minister Wins Libel Damages”, Guardian, 29 02. 1996.Google Scholar

6. [1993] 1 All E.R. 1011.Google Scholar

7. [1964] 3 All E.R. 947Google Scholar; [1962] 2 All E.R. 714.Google Scholar

8. [1993] 4 All E.R. 975.Google Scholar

9. Idem, p.988.

10. [1993] 1 All E.R. 1011.Google Scholar

11. [1991] 1 All E.R. 720.Google Scholar

12. A-G v. Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No.2) [1988] 3 All E.R. 545.Google Scholar

13. [1993] 4 All E.R. 975, 994.Google Scholar

14. (1979) 2 E.H.R.R. 245, 271.Google Scholar

15. [1993] 4 All E.R. 975, 997.Google Scholar

16. Ibid.

17. Cf. Pearson LJ in McCarey, supra n.7, at p.958, when deciding the award in that case was excessive: “It is in the end a matter of impression, and I cannot resist the impression that the sum is much, much too large.”Google Scholar

18. (1995) 20 E.H.R.R. 442.Google Scholar

19. Idem, para.49.

20. (1992) 178 C.L.R. 44.Google Scholar

21. (1991) 172 C.L.R. 211.Google Scholar

22. See Thomson, J., “Slouching towards Tenterfield: the Constitutionalization of Tort Law in Australia” (1995) Tort L.Rev. 81.Google Scholar

23. (1991) 172 C.L.R. 211, 218–219.Google Scholar

24. Idem, p.220.

25. [1996] 2 All E.R. 35 (CA).Google Scholar

26. The two other reasons were that, first, a coherent body of Appeal Court libel awards to which juries might be referred has yet to emerge and, second, large awards which have been substantially reduced on appeal continue to be made.

27. [1996] 2 A11 E.R. 35, 51.Google Scholar

28. Idem, p.53.

29. Idem, p.54.

30. Idem, p.58.

31. Reckless in this context meant: “The publisher must have suspected the words were untrue and have deliberately refrained from taking obvious steps which, if taken, would have turned suspicions into certainty”: ibid.

32. Idem, p.64.

33. (1964) 376 U.S. 254.Google Scholar

34. See especially Kalven, H., “The New York Times Case: A Note on the Central Meaning of the First Amendment” (1964) Supreme Court Rev. 191Google Scholar; Brennan, , “The Supreme Court and the Meiklejohn View of the First Amendment” (1965) 79 Harv.L.R. 1.Google Scholar

35. Kalven, Idem, p.191.

36. Monitor Patriot v. Roy (1971) 401 U.S. 265Google Scholar, Curtis v. Butts (1967) 388 U.S. 130Google Scholar and Rosenblatt v. Baer (1966) 383 U.S. 75Google Scholar; Walker v. Associated Press (1967) 388 U.S. 130.Google Scholar See Kalven, H., “The Reasonable Man and the First Amendment: Hill, Butts and Walker” (1967) Supreme Court Rev. 267.Google Scholar

37. Rosenbloom v. Metromedia (1971) 403 U.S. 29Google Scholar: Time Inc. v. Hill (1967) 17 L.Ed. 2d 456Google Scholar: Gertz v. Robert Welch (1974) 418 U.S. 323.Google Scholar

38. (1923) 139 N.E. 86.Google Scholar

39. For a general introduction to the area see Harris, , O'Boyle, and Warbrick, , Law of the ECHR (1995), chap.11Google Scholar: Janis, , Kay, and Bradley, , European Human Rights Law (1995), chap.6.Google Scholar

40. (1986) 8 E.H.R.R. 407Google Scholar; (1992) 14 E.H.R.R. 445Google Scholar; and (1995) 19 E.H.R.R. 389 respectively.Google Scholar

41. Lingens, Idem, para.41.

42. Idem, para.42.

43. Idem, para.49.

44. Ibid.

45. (1992) 14 E.H.R.R. paras.43 and 46.Google Scholar

46. (1995) 19 E.H.R.R. 389 para.57.Google Scholar

47. Ibid.

48. “This is underlined by the wording of article 10 where the public's right to receive information and ideas is expressly mentioned”: idem, para.58.

49. (1834) 149 E.R. 1044, 1049–1050.Google Scholar

50. [1960] 2 Q.B. 535.Google Scholar

51. (1799) 8 T.R. 293, 298.Google Scholar

52. (1853) 3 C. & K. 386.Google Scholar

53. [1960] 2 Q.B. 535, 565.Google Scholar

54. Idem, p.569.

55. Idem, pp. 569–570.

56. [1984] 1 Q.B. 9 (CA).Google Scholar

57. Idem, p.41 (per Fox LJ).

58. Idem, p.26.

59. (1877)L.R. 2 C.P. 215.Google Scholar

60. Idem, p.221.

61. [1984] 1 Q.B. 9, 35.Google Scholar Fox LJ took a similar approach and reached a similar conclusion. He denied that the electorate has an “audience interest” in this type of information: “an allegation of improper or negligent conduct against a public servant may be privileged if made to persons having a proper interest to receive it—such as the police or senior officials”: Idem, p.41.

62. (1994) 68 A.L.R. 713.Google Scholar

63. Idem, p.766.

64. Idem, p.787.

65. See supra n.1.

66. Joyce v. Senugupta [1993] 1 All E.R. 897.Google Scholar

67. See Brennan, J in Garrison v. Louisiana (1964) 379 U.S. 64.Google Scholar

68. Nationwide News v. Wills (1992) 177 C.L.R. 1Google Scholar; Australian Capital Television v. Commonwealth of Australia (1992) 108 A.L.R. 577.Google Scholar For comment see Kennet, G., “Individual Rights, the High Court and the Constitution” (1994) 19 Melbourne U.L.R. 581Google Scholar; Lee, H., “The Australian High Court and Implied Fundamental Guarantees” (1993) Pub.L. 606.Google Scholar

69. See Thomson, op. cit. supra n.22; Cassimatis, A., “Defamation—the Constitutional Public Officer Defence” (1996) Tort L.Rev. 27Google Scholar; Walker, S., “The Impact of the High Court's Free Speech Cases on Defamation Law” (1995) 17 Sydney L.R. 43.Google Scholar