tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2252148456560466396.post1536259776267742957..comments2023-06-19T13:17:55.210+00:00Comments on MediaPaL@LSE: Reframing Libel: taking (all) rights seriously and where it leadsAndrew Scotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08664518896648660120noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2252148456560466396.post-89903494811372080652014-01-03T16:43:46.744+00:002014-01-03T16:43:46.744+00:00Reflections to hire papersmart.net phd dissertatio...Reflections to hire <a href="http://papersmart.net/phd-thesis-writing.html" rel="nofollow">papersmart.net</a> phd dissertation writing service is worthy of a deep research on a pointed theme. Ask for our help you know there must be someone to help you in. Even when smart people are told to prepare an article or a short story or just a simple overview of any kind, many students try to apply for our writing company help. This type of work requires serious brains as well as critical cogitation in a readable and structured form.Imaculnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2252148456560466396.post-38872638780034274852010-11-19T15:36:32.678+00:002010-11-19T15:36:32.678+00:00Now that the Ministry of Justice have announced a ...Now that the Ministry of Justice have announced a timetable for the forthcoming review of UK Libel legislation, in response to unprecedented pressure from the media and following what has been one of the most successful US lobbying campaigns since that initiated by the tobacco industry some years ago, it will be interesting to see how the Government reacts to this totally unjustified clamour for reform.<br />I say this particularly bearing in mind the embarrassment caused to the American lobbyists and legislators as a result of the recently published statistics establishing beyond any doubt that, contrary to press speculation on both sides of the Atlantic, the number of international libel claims brought before the UK Courts has been miniscule, thereby further exposing the totally disproportionate response to what is, to all intents and purposes, a “non issue”.<br />Of even more significance will be the reaction of our Courts to requests for enforcement of US judgments against UK citizens and companies in cases involving grossly excessive punitive damages and attorneys’ fees, the latter often amounting to almost fifty percent of the damages awarded. To reverse the argument put forward by the lobbyists in the US Libel Tourism debate, such judgments would never be countenanced by a UK Court and the scale of such awards are offensive to all basic principles of British law.<br />If we are to believe everything we read in the press and the extensive coverage of the so called libel tourism problem, then you would think that the UK Courts were being besieged by multiple claims from numerous international litigants seeking to obtain justice by the back door, which is of course nonsense as the facts and figures have now established. The truth of the matter is that the media have seized upon an opportunity to snuff out one of the last opportunities for the general public to seek redress from an increasingly reckless press, who already have the financial clout to see off any unfortunate individual having the temerity to take them on, unless that individual is a man of substantial means.<br />Unfortunately the powerful lobbying platform enjoyed by the press is not available to the supporters of our Defamation laws, in what has been, at best, a one sided debate in the media. <br />The irony is that the UK broadsheets are generally regarded to be among the most credible and respected in the world, which is in no small measure due to our fair and balanced libel laws! <br />Paul Tweed<br />Johnsons Law Firm<br />Senior Partner<br />Belfast | Dublin | London<br />w:www.johnsonslaw.com<br />b:www.globallibeldebate.comPaul Tweednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2252148456560466396.post-86637205126434083032010-11-14T13:42:52.089+00:002010-11-14T13:42:52.089+00:00... [cont'd]
Damages are also currently award...... [cont'd]<br /><br />Damages are also currently awarded for vindication. We think this is not the best way to achieve restoration of reputation and prefer mandated discursive remedies (corrections / apologies / rights of reply, perhaps declarations of falsity). Indeed, we think that relying on vindication damages distracts attention away from the need to put the record straight. Here a question for us was whether the decision-maker should continue to rely on the claimant's meaning. We concluded that (a) the single meaning rule is counter-factual, and (b) given that (or if) the complained of meaning(s) will have been ruled reasonable then some of the audience can be presumed to have inferred those meanings. if this is the case, and if the expected remedy is a discursive one only, then what reason could there be for the decision-maker not to oblige an apology for each unprovable but damaging meaning.<br /><br />The final type of harm is special damage / provable loss. We propose that damages for such loss should be recoverable only in the High Court, track-two forum. Hence, if you want to take a case down this route you would first have to make a good argument that special damage or severe Art 8 / psychological harm had been caused (eg Lillie and Reed v Newcastle City Council). That won't be easy – 1 out 100 cases?<br /><br />We appreciate that there may well be many grounds on which our proposals can be challenged / criticised. We'd hope that such criticism will be based on a full and accurate reading of our proposal. Our working paper is to be published by City University, and we will be circulating to many people who have kindly agreed to offer us comment. We would also be very keen to receive as much feedback from others as possible, and hope ourselves to identify shortcomings in our thinking. Ultimately, contrary to the above comment, we think that our proposals would significantly reduce complexity and hence costs in the libel regime, while still securing a proper balance between reputation and free speech while enhancing access to justice for all parties.Andrew Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08664518896648660120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2252148456560466396.post-58640400075412655182010-11-14T13:42:26.734+00:002010-11-14T13:42:26.734+00:00This response too is reprinted from the Inforrm bl...This response too is reprinted from the Inforrm blog piece:<br /><br />While the take here on the NSW experience is fair, it has little or no relevance to what myself and Alastair Mullis have proposed. We do not envisage a separate trial for the determination of meaning followed by the trial proper. We do not pretend that there is always a single meaning to be inferred from a given publication. Rather, we ask what is the nature of the harm that is caused by libels and how can be best design a libel regime to accommodate these purposes while balancing all pertinent individual and social interests.<br /><br />The first type of harm – which can be more or less significant depending on the facts at hand – is the psychological impact caused in the mind of the claimant. This is currently addressed under the rhetoric of damages for injury to feelings, hassle and upset. It is basic knowledge in social psychology that one’s sense of self-worth is determined in part by what one perceives to be the regard in which others hold us (the ‘looking glass self’). Libels can cause us to think that others will think less of us, so in principle and assuming a sufficient level of seriousness, libel law should provide an appropriate remedy. For this we think damages are appropriate, although we imagine that in 99 of 100 cases the measure will be low (< £10k). The next stage in our thinking is that if the damage is caused in the mind of the claimant, then it is the claimant's inferred meaning that should provide the basis for the subsequent consideration, subject to a test of capability / reasonableness / significance. Determination of meaning doesn't need a separate trial or process. Indeed, it becomes very straightforward indeed. The question is not 'what is the meaning', but rather only 'is the given meaning a capable or reasonable one'.<br /><br />The next type of harm is intangible loss (the unquantifiable amount of harm presumed to have been caused to reputation). Here we propose to withdraw the remedy in damages for reasons elaborated in our paper.<br /><br />... see further commentAndrew Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08664518896648660120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2252148456560466396.post-64523986537515302862010-11-14T02:17:23.214+00:002010-11-14T02:17:23.214+00:00I have posted an answer to this proposal on the In...I have posted an answer to this proposal on the Inforrm site. This system of separate trials on meaning was tried in NSW between 1995 - 2005 and after a series of perverse jury verdicts, appeals and inordinate expense (especially for media lawyers) was abandoned. The media reported their legal costs doubled. <br /><br />In addition, just how many County Court judges are going to be able to put aside their busy workload and, in a court with limited resources, hear trials on meaning? In practical terms, the costs end up being the same.<br /><br />There would not be a problem if very simple libels were referred to the County Court by the High Court, but when is a libel simple? Was Adam v Ward simple? It is very hard to tell what the issues are just from the statement of claim, or even the defence.<br /><br />The number one problem for defamation law is the cost. Procedures involving multiple courts and multiple hearings multiply the cost, particularly if the case comes before a non-specialist judge (and I remind you of Lord Steyn's May 2010 paper commenting on injunctions granted by judges without specialist knowledge who failed to apply s 8 principles).<br /><br />Please rethink this cumbersome, expensive and potentially unfair proposal!jcghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18228110908501021654noreply@blogger.com