JACK STRAW is preparing to draw up proposals for wholesale reform of England’s libel laws, after a long-running Sunday Times campaign.

The justice secretary says the large legal fees involved in defamation cases in English courts are jeopardising freedom of speech, potentially curbing vital debate by scientists, academics and journalists.

The huge payouts awarded to individuals who successfully claim their reputation has been damaged has made London the libel capital of the world.

Last night, Straw warned that the bonanza for lawyers and claimants was having a “chilling” effect and pledged radical changes. “It is very important that citizens are able to take action for defamation if they are seriously defamed. But no-win, no-fee arrangements have got out of hand. The system has become unbalanced,” he said.

Wealthy individuals from all over the world are heading to London’s High Court to bring libel cases because England’s draconian libel laws make it easier to win than in jurisdictions such as America, which put greater emphasis on freedom of speech. Courts are accepting cases with flimsy connections to Britain.

American newspapers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Boston Globe have warned that they may be forced to stop selling copies in the UK because of the risk of being sued.

In one case, a wealthy Saudi businessman successfully sued an American academic whose book on funding terrorism sold just 23 copies in Britain over the internet. He was awarded £130,000 damages and costs by London courts.

In another case, a British consultant cardiologist, Dr Peter Wilmshurst, is being sued by an American company, NMT Medical, for questioning the effectiveness of a new heart implant device. Wilmshurst raised his criticism at an American conference and his comments were posted on a US website, but he is being pursued at the High Court because a number of cardiologists read the article in Britain.

In measures that are expected to win cross-party support, Straw believes individuals and media groups must have a clearer right to express their views, as in other countries.

“A free press can’t operate or be effective unless it can offer readers comment as well as news. What concerns me is that the current arrangements are being used by big corporations to restrict fair comment, not always by journalists but also by academics,” he said.

He also wants to see new restrictions on no-win, no-fee arrangements and curbs on legal fees involved in fighting cases. In many cases, lawyers who win libel cases make 10 times the money their clients are awarded. He cited one case in which a regional newspaper was forced to pay damages of £5,000 to a plaintiff but £50,000 to the plaintiff’s lawyer.

“The very high levels of remuneration for defamation lawyers in Britain seem to be incentivising libel tourism,” he said.

Straw has been impressed by a report from Index on Censorship, the free-speech body, and English PEN, a charity that supports persecuted writers. The groups jointly conducted a year-long inquiry into the issue. Their report warns that current laws risk turning the country into a “global pariah”; its recommendations include capping libel damages at £10,000 and making an apology the chief remedy; shifting the burden of proof so that claimants have to demonstrate damage; and preventing cases from being heard in London unless at least 10% of the offending publication’s circulation is in the UK.

The proposed changes are still under discussion, but Straw is keen to begin the process, which could involve a new libel bill, as soon as possible.

Libel lawyers agree that reform is necessary but some argue that the threat of being sued encourages the media to report accurately. Paul Tweed, an Irish libel lawyer who has acted in England and Ireland for US celebrities including the singers Britney Spears and Jennifer Lopez, said: “I believe the UK broadsheets are among the finest and most credible in the world because of libel laws which keep a check on what is published.”

He claimed that most wealthy individuals who bring libel cases are not motivated by money: “The Hollywood stars I act for are not seeking damages. What they want is the record set straight, fast, because if it is not, it will be pumped round the internet.”

Among those who have recently attacked the libel laws are the former director of public prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, and the scientist Richard Dawkins, who warned that the laws make scientists wary of challenging bogus claims about health products.

The laws help despots

War criminals and despots are using England’s draconian libel and privacy laws to try to gag their critics. In one case, Human Rights Watch, a campaigning charity, was forced to change a report about the genocide in Rwanda after a man it accused of helping to transport a group of Tutsis to their deaths threatened to sue in English courts.

In another case, Global Witness, an environmental and human rights pressure group, was threatened with an injunction by Denis Christel Sassou-Nguesso, son of the president of Congo-Brazzaville, after it published documents that suggested he had bought more than $250,000 (£151,000) of designer clothes and other luxury goods using a credit card paid for by public funds. The injunction was not granted but Global Witness had to pay £50,000 in legal costs.

You can tell there's an election on the way...

We’re going to ‘flashmob’ Trafigura ( 2 Portman Street, London W1H 6DU ) at 1pm on Thursday November 26th. The main aim is to highlight the fact that Trafigura/Carter Ruck are, even now, still suing the BBC for libel - (over this report) and thus continuing to cast a chill over the UK media.

The key feature of the protest will be an act of defiance against Trafigura’s attempt to stop the reporting of the fact that their toxic waste is alleged to have caused a number of deaths (ie. not just ‘flu-like symptoms’).

The plan is to quote verbatim from Hansard, as (despite some uncertainty recently) we know that we have an absolute legal right to quote from Parliamentary proceedings.

According to Evan Harris MP (quoted here in a Parliamentary debate, hence we can quote him):

“Newsnight” is being threatened by the lawyers for Trafigura, Carter-Ruck, if it repeats an allegation against Carter-Ruck that deaths were caused by the dumping of toxic waste in Ivory Coast, even though in 2007 Hansard reported the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations laid by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs before Parliament, and a memorandum of explanation to those regulations stated:

“The recent example of the release of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast leading to the deaths of a number of people and the hospitalisation of thousands underlines the risks involved in the movement and management of waste.”

How can it be that that can be in Hansard, yet there are still threats of legal action against “Newsnight” if it reports the very same wording that is used in there?

So the plan is to turn up outside their offices with as many people (and cameraphones, mini-video cams, etc.) as possible, and recite this text – either all of the above, or just the two lines Harris is quoting from the ‘memorandum’.

The highlight will be Sly and Reggie, with their “Suburban Pirate” mobile (a lovely old Morris pickup), which has a public address system they will employ to a similar purpose, together with the rather good song they’ve recorded specifically on this subject.

There’s a rumour that (subject to local byelaws) we’ll also be drinking a toast to freedom outside Trafigura’s office, with some banana bread beer…

I spent Tuesday night at the Barley Mow pub in Westminster, central London, surrounded by 150 people who were outraged at the state of English libel laws. The event, which is part of a series of Skeptics in the Pub events around the country, started with a misquote from Star Wars that set the tone of optimism for the entire evening: “We are more possible than you can powerfully imagine.”

The mob, clamouring for a more liberal approach to free speech, was made up largely of bloggers, academics and sceptics. They all passionately share the same belief, which is that the freedom to criticise fairly and strongly is the cornerstone of debate and progress.

One of the main fears, expressed repeatedly during the evening, was the sheer cost of a libel case. Although the damages at stake might be just £10,000, going to trial can mean risking more than £1m. This means that a blogger has to ask whether he or she can afford the possibility of bankruptcy. Even if a blogger is 90% confident of victory, there is still a 10% chance of failure, which is why bloggers often back down, withdraw and apologise for material they believe is true, fair and important to the public.

I should point out that I am being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association. Indeed, last week I was at the Court of Appeal where I received permission to appeal against an earlier ruling on the meaning of my article. The original article was published 18 months ago, the case has cost me £100,000 and there is still a long way to go. My reason for not backing down is that I believe my article is accurate, important and a matter of public interest, as it relates to the use of chiropractic in treating various childhood conditions, such as asthma and ear infections.

Although my article was published in The Guardian, I am being sued personally. Fortunately, thanks to the success of my books, Fermat’s Last Theorem and The Code Book, I have the resources to fund my own defence. The case might seriously damage me but it will not bankrupt me. For bloggers, such a case could lead to financial ruin.

Allen Green, the event organiser, who blogs as Jack of Kent, summarised sentiment thus: “There is uncertainty and trepidation. The law currently treats bloggers as publishers, so they carry all the same legal risks of a publisher.”

For example, the website Bad Psychics has been forced to remove an article about a psychic healer. This problem was reported by Andy Lewis, who runs the Quackometer website and who is one of the most tenacious and insightful bloggers on the web. However, even Lewis fears the intimidation brought about by English libel law: “In light of what happened to Bad Psychics, I have to think seriously about what I write.”

Even if a blogger is prepared to stand by a blog, he or she can be undermined by the company hosting the blog. When the Society of Homeopaths took offence at Lewis’s criticisms of its regulatory practices, it threatened his web-hosting company. The company had no reason to put its neck on the line for a blogger who was paying just £9.99 a month, so it took down his blog. Luckily, Lewis’s blog has found virtual shelter with the Positive Internet Company, which is run by a team that cares about free speech on the web. It welcomed him with a brief e-mail: “I note your cowardly hosting company censored your homeopathy post. I am happy to offer you free hosting at my company. I hope you’ll find we’re sturdy vertebrates!”

The academic David Colquhoun, professor of pharmacology at University College London, was another blogger who dared to criticise a therapy that he felt lacked clinical support. After writing about the herbal medicine red clover, his university received a letter threatening legal action because it was hosting Colquhoun’s supposed defamatory blog. UCL removed the site after taking legal advice. Although the university later decided to welcome the professor back, partly due to pressure from academics around the world, he has also moved his blog across to Positive. It is important to note that academic journals also receive libel threats. Colquhoun himself was threatened for an article about chiropractors published in The New Zealand Medical Journal last year. Fortunately the editor was not prepared to back down, responding: “Let’s hear your evidence, not your legal muscle.”

Even academics being interviewed have to fear libel. The cardiologist Peter Wilmshurst gave an interview to an American journalist about a new device that he was testing. The company behind the device is now suing him. If he loses the case, he may also lose his house.

Few cases get to trial, but the bigger problem is that bloggers and academics are regularly censoring their own material in order to avoid litigation, and often they avoid writing about certain topics, companies and people.

Exactly the same situation exists in national newspapers. Events last week may have shifted public feeling towards a realisation that our libel laws are unjust and we are no longer a land of free speech.

There are clear ways forward, such as drastically reducing libel costs by capping fees, and introducing a public interest defence to protect those writing about health, safety and other issues. However, there has to be public support to push this issue up the political agenda.

Keep Libel Laws Out of Science has started a campaign for libel reform, which will have an effect far beyond the world of science if it is successful.

A statement already has 20,000 signatories, including the astronomer royal, the poet laureate, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Fry, Ricky Gervais and Dara O’Briain. To add your name, visit www.senseaboutscience.org/freedebate.

The problem of libel is partly about what we as journalists, bloggers and academics can write, but it is also crucially about what you are allowed to read.

You deserve the same access to information as the rest of Europe and America.

The man who created the modern libel industry was a dedicated liar and a reactionary with a lust for cash

• David Hooper
• The Guardian, Tuesday 23 December 2003 07.36 GMT
• Article history

The libel lawyer Peter Carter-Ruck, who died on Friday, had a chilling effect on the media. He was a chancer, out for the maximum fee. And he did for freedom of speech what the Boston Strangler did for door-to-door salesmen.

Until Carter-Ruck got his teeth into the libel law, actions were infrequent and inexpensive. But from the 1950s, Carter-Ruck became the leading libel lawyer and clients sought him out. He honed his menacing letters to encourage socialites to sue for imagined slights and fashion a weapon for politicians to suppress hostile stories. He preferred the bludgeon of the writ to the rather more effective call to an editor preferred by Lord Goodman. He established the idea that libel law was complicated and merited very high fees. In the process he became very rich. "I like to bill the clients as the tears are flowing," he told me.

Libel was good to him: four homes, a Rolls-Royce and a string of yachts called Fair Judgement. But perniciously he built a libel factory, paid for by the media's legal and insurance bills. Carter-Ruck had some novel techniques. You could only settle a libel action by paying his exorbitant fees without any question of the bill being checked by the court. He hit upon the wheeze of Randolph Churchill retaining all the libel QCs to prevent them acting for Private Eye (a practice since banned) and of serial libel actions, as in the case of Princess Elizabeth of Toro (which brought us the term "Ugandan discussions").

His practice had rightwing connections. With Carter-Ruck at the helm, the firm of Oswald Hickson Collier acted for the Conservative party and the likes of Norman Tebbit and Cecil Parkinson.

In his memoirs he praised the rightwing financier Sir James Goldsmith for alleviating the injustice of the lack of legal aid with money from a foundation. He said it let solicitors assess cases in the same way as the Legal Aid Board would. However, the assessor was none other than Carter-Ruck, and his firm was paid, win or lose. The beneficiaries tended not to be widows and orphans but rightwing politicos such as Neil Hamilton, who trousered £20,000 from the BBC for a Panorama programme - Carter-Ruck's bill was £240,000.

The Goldsmith Foundation's other beneficiaries included Brian Crozier, a cold war enthusiast with intelligence links, and an official of the breakaway Union of Democratic Mineworkers who sued Arthur Scargill.

Once described as the Margaret Thatcher of defamation law, Carter-Ruck was a conviction libel lawyer. If he acted for the plaintiff, he thought it the most outrageous libel; if for the defendant, the case should never have been bought. The common thread was to extract the maximum.

Carter-Ruck had one row after another with his partners. In 1977 they tried to boot him out and after four years' litigation were successful when he decamped to another part of the same building to form Peter Carter-Ruck & Partners. Within four years all his founding partners had left, including his daughter.

I left his firm in pure Carter-Ruck circumstances. Heinemann, for whom we acted, was publishing a book about the Ford family, by Robert Lacey. I was told by Carter-Ruck that there was no conflict in our advising. Lacey sent part of the book to Henry Ford for comment. Later I found Carter-Ruck advising Ford that the book was full of libel. He proved unable to give a truthful explanation.

Cases brought by Tudor Roberts, a solicitor, and the journalist Derek Jameson illustrate the Carter-Ruck techniques. In 1985 Roberts was awarded £20,000 damages against Private Eye plus costs on the higher scale. I agreed before I left Carter-Ruck's firm that he would only pay the costs recoverable from Private Eye. Carter-Ruck, however, billed Roberts £60,000. The cost judge allowed only £18,567. My assurance was ignored. Carter Ruck wanted the lot. It was two years before Roberts was reimbursed his damages and the legal costs he had earlier paid.

Derek Jameson, as a tabloid editor, had been unwisely advised to sue the BBC over a satirical sketch. Carter-Ruck said Jameson would get £25,000-£50,000. David Eady QC advised Carter-Ruck in writing that Jameson accept the £10 that the BBC had offered in settlement plus his costs. Carter-Ruck concealed this opinion from Jameson. Jameson lost the case and was sent a bill by Carter Ruck for £41,342.50. When he learned by chance of the QC's pessimistic advice, Carter-Ruck told him a string of lies.

· David Hooper is a media lawyer and was a partner of Peter Carter-Ruck

A funny thing happened to my parliamentary evidence…

Aug 27, 2009 FOI in Parliament, Freedom of Information

Readers may recall that on 30th June 2009 I gave evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life as part of their inquiry into MPs’ allowances. I gave oral evidence and also submitted an opening statement. I posted this statement on my blog (read it here) and the Committee posted it on their website along with transcripts from the public hearings. The committee’s website states: “The Committee publishes all evidence”.

Well that’s not entirely true. As of yesterday, my submission went missing and I received the following email:

Dear Ms Brooke

Our lawyers have advised us not publish your submission due to the following reason:

“it contains statements about named individuals which are potentially defamatory.”

We are currently seeking their clarification and requesting suitable redaction.

Once we have this, I will forward them to you for your authority, in writing, to the redaction. We will then be able to publish your submission.

Anju Still
Business Manager
Committee on Standards in Public Life

You can read my statement yourself and decide. There’s very little about named politicians and what there is has already been published elsewhere. But more to the point – what sort of public inquiry is it where those giving evidence can’t speak freely and have to worry about being clobbered by the world’s worst libel law? I don’t think the take-down of my statement is necessarily the fault of the Committee and to be fair, lawyers are always risk averse. What is a disgrace is that it should even be a risk to publish evidence given to a committee set up to investigate parliament. There’s also the shameless double standard: That MPs and those giving evidence to MPs are protected from libel by parliamentary privilege, yet those giving evidence to a public inquiry investigating MPs have no such protection. A pretty scandalous state of affairs for a so-called democracy.

It would be very funny indeed if I were to receive a libel writ from an MP for my evidence given to a public inquiry investigating MPs.