Category: Defamation

Why are legislators so loath to repeal criminal libel provisions?

| 5 Comments
| Defamation, Defamation Bill 2006, Sedition

Article XIX logo, via their site.Article XIX, the Global Campaign for Freedom of Expression, is an international human rights organisation which defends and promotes freedom of expression and access to information worldwide. Defamation is one of the Global Issues on which they focus. Indeed, their 2000 Defining Defamation report (pdf) seeks to set out an appropriate balance between the human right to freedom of expression and the need to protect individual reputations. Principle 4 of this document, concerning criminal defamation, provides

(a) All criminal defamation laws should be abolished and replaced, where necessary, with appropriate civil defamation laws. Steps should be taken, in those States which still have criminal defamation laws in place, to progressively implement this Principle.

Article XIX defamation map, via their siteUnsurprisingly, therefore, they have this week published an overview of worldwide defamation trends, which they have enlivened with interactive maps of applicable legislation and punishments. They simply record that, for both Ireland and the UK, there are civil and criminal sanctions for defamation. But, in a parallel development, they have lobbied (letter | press release (both pdfs)) the UK government to accept an amendment of the Coroners and Justice Bill 2008 put down by Dr Evan Harris, MP which would abolish criminal libel in the UK.…

Read More »

Article 10 and the Duke of Brunswick

| 10 Comments
| Defamation Bill 2006, ECHR, Freedom of Expression, Multiple publication

Duke of Brunswick, originally via wikipedia, but now hosted locallyWilliam VIII, Duke of Brunswick (pictured left; 1806-1884) was ruling duke of the Duchy of Brunswick from 1830 until his death. A famous eccentric, he bequeathed at least two interesting events to history. First, he lost a famous chess game to Paul Morphy (the Bobby Fischer of his era). Second, he won an infamous libel appeal which now governs internet publication at English and Irish law.

The rule in Duke of Brunswick v Harmer (1849) 14 QB 185 is that each individual publication of a libel gives rise to a separate cause of action, subject to its own limitation period; it has been followed at the highest levels (Berezovsky v Michaels [2000] UKHL 25 (11 May 2000); Dow Jones v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575, [2002] HCA 56 (10 December 2002)) and in the online context (Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd [2001] QB 201, [1999] EWHC QB 244 (26 March 1999); Dow Jones v Gutnick again). US law is different: a defamatory publication gives rise to a single cause of action for libel, which accrues at the time of the original publication, and that the statute of limitations runs from that date (see, eg, Gregoire v GP Putnam’s Sons 81 NE 2d 45 (1948)).…

Read More »

The disjointed progress of the Defamation Bill, 2006

| 1 Comment
| Defamation, Defamation Bill 2006, Irish Law, Libel tourism

As the Dáil resumed yesterday, last week’s post on libel tourism has prompted me to pick up the story of the tortuous progress of the Defamation Bill, 2006 through the Houses of the Oireachtas [the Houses of Parliament]. When we left it on this blog, it had just scraped the through the Seanad [the Senate, the Upper House of Parliament] on the second time of asking; thereafter, it had a brief consideration in the Dáil [functionally equivalent to a House of Commons, the Lower House of Parliament] before the Summer recess halted its progress once more. This post, and the next few, will consider these stages of its progress, just in time to wait (and – probably – wait and wait) for further developments in the new Dáil session.

The Defamation Bill in the Seanad
The Defamation Bill, 2006 was introduced into the Seanad on 7 July 2006, and thereby began a long and winding road to enactment, a destination it has not yet reached. …

Read More »

Libel Tourists – Is Ireland selling what they’re buying?

| 2 Comments
| Defamation, libel tourism

UN HRC logoIn July, the UN Human Rights Committee, as part of its triennial review of member states’ compliance with human rights norms, criticised the UK’s record on freedom of expression (CCPR/C/GBR/CO/6) in the following terms:

25. The Committee is concerned that the State party’s practical application of the law of libel has served to discourage critical media reporting on matters of serious public interest, adversely affecting the ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work, including through the phenomenon known as “libel tourism.” The advent of the internet and the international distribution of foreign media also create the danger that a State party’s unduly restrictive libel law will affect freedom of expression worldwide on matters of valid public interest …

The State party should re-examine its technical doctrines of libel law, and consider the utility of a so-called “public figure” exception, requiring proof by the plaintiff of actual malice in order to go forward on actions concerning reporting on public officials and prominent public figures, …

(The report is on this page, scroll down to the UK section, click on the E in the right-most column; the UN server won’t accept a deeper link, unfortunately.)

Reports and reactions: Amnesty | Blogzilla | Guardian here and here | Independent here and here | Jurist | Media Law Prof Blog | Press Gazette | Telegraph here and here | Scotsman.…

Read More »

Declaration of Falsity

| 5 Comments
| Defamation

Section 26(1) of the Defamation Bill, 2006 (as initiated) provides

A person who claims to be the subject of a statement that he or she alleges is defamatory may apply to the High Court for an order (in this Act referred to as a “declaratory order”) that the statement is false and defamatory of him or her.

It is intended as a remedy for those who simply want court recognition that they were defamed but who do not necessarily want a remedy in damages. An excellent example of how such an order might work is provided by a story by Frances Gibb in yesterday’s Times (with added links):

Sir Salman Rushdie wins apology from former bodyguard over libel

…

Read More »

The Defamation Bill is passed by the Seanad, eventually!

| 2 Comments
| Defamation

Seanad ceiling, from the Oireachtas websiteAt the second time of asking, and after lengthy debate (which I will analyse in a later post) the Defamation Bill, 2006 finally passed the Seanad [Senate, or Upper House] last night (hat tip, Daithí­). The full text of that final debate is now available here.

This is encouraging news, but we have only reached half-time in the long game that is Oireachtas [Parliamentary] procedure. It must now go to the Dáil [Lower House, functionally equivalent to the House of Commons], where the stakes and the profile will be higher. The stakes will be higher because there will be no further opportunity to amend the Bill once it passes. And the profile will be higher because Dáil debates always have a greater impact on the public and media consciousness than do Seanad debates (for example, there is barely a whimper of recognition of the importance of last night’s debate in the mainstream media – apart from the Irish Examiner and the Irish Independent, the Irish Times Seanad Report (sub req’d) discusses an entirely different issue, with the Defamation Bill getting a single sentence near the end, and no mention at all that it had been passed, and there seems to be no mention of it on the RTÉ News website).…

Read More »

Beware, unintended consequences

| 5 Comments
| Blasphemy, Censorship, Defamation, Media and Communications

Durer Blasphemy woodcut, via wikipediaDaithí has just published a wonderful post on the The strange death of criminal libel?. On the issue of criminal libel, he concludes that the Defamation Bill, 2006, currently receiving its Report and Final Stages in the Seanad even as I write this post,

will without further amendment provide for

* the repeal of the [Defamation Act], 1961 [blogged here] including Part 2 dealing with various criminal offences
* the explicit repeal of “the common law offences of criminal libel, seditious libel and obscene libel�
* no provisions on a new offence of the publication of gravely harmful statements
* no specific mention of blasphemy or blasphemous libel other than the repeal of s 13 (as part of the general repeal) of the 1961 Act (though I think that might mean that, especially in conjunction with the Constitution, blasphemous libel – or blasphemy, indeed – would continue to exist – but see note below on the definition of criminal libel)

And that, I believe, is good news.

I agree; it is thoroughly good news. I agree that the repeal of the 1961 Act and of various of the common law libel offences is a good thing. Moreover, the removal of the proposed replacement offence of publication of gravely harmful statements is an even better thing.…

Read More »

Appeal overturns food review case

| 8 Comments
| Defamation

Irish News portico, via BBC website.Under the above headline, the BBC is reporting that “the Court of Appeal [in Northern Ireland] has quashed a controversial libel case, seen as a watershed for press freedom”. As already discussed on this blog (here, here and here) food critics writing restaurant reviews will usually be able to rely on the defence of fair comment. As I noted in an earlier post, the case arose out of a review of a Belfast pizzeria in the Irish News. …

Read More »

© cearta.ie 2025. Powered by WordPress