A high-profile campaign by the media against new jail terms for unlawfully obtaining personal data has won an important concession.

Parliament has been considering a Bill to impose a sentence of up to two years in prison for journalists and private detectives who, contrary to Section 55 of the Data Protection Act, unlawfully obtain, disclose or procure personal data.

But the Government is reported to have lost confidence in the reform.

One minister, Lord Hunt, said Gordon Brown was concerned to make sure legitimate investigative journalism is not “impeded”.

He was quoted as saying: “We intend to withdraw this clause…unless a satisfactory solution … can be identified by all the parties involved.”

At present, under Section 60 of the Act, the maximum penalty for reporters raiding data banks for information on people’s private lives is a £5,000 fine in the magistrates’ court or an unlimited fine in the crown court.

The Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, wanted what he called the media’s “powerful last-ditch efforts” to be rejected.

He has said journalists engaged in legitimate investigative reporting have nothing to fear from the proposed jail terms as the Act contains a “public interest” defence.

However, ministers have reportedly decided to table a last-minute amendment to the Bill under which, in a compromise with Mr Thomas, the power to impose jail sentences for data theft will remain in the Bill but will be suspended.

Elsewhere, a recent damages payout in an internet libel case shows how the web’s reputation as a lawless ‘wild west’ zone is not always deserved.

Housing group chief executive Peter Walls recently accepted £100,000 in settlement of his High Court libel claim against a businessman and a housing company that were behind an online campaign of libel and harassment.

It is said to be the largest ever payout in an internet libel case.

An anonymous group calling themselves ‘Dads Place’ was responsible for a website campaign that repeatedly attacked Mr Walls’ reputation.

Substantial costs were incurred in tracking down those responsible for the postings but the eventual victory shows that, if claimants have sufficient money for forensic computer enquiries and disclosure applications, effective action can be taken against people who try to hide behind online anonymity to wage personal attacks.

Meanwhile, the common practice of Americans being sued in England for online defamation read by users in this country suffered a setback when the state of New York passed a law protecting writers and publishers from the enforcement of foreign libel judgments.

It follows the case of New York-based writer Dr Rachel Ehrenfeld who was successfully sued in London by a Saudi businessman and his sons over her book on terrorism funding.

The claimants won judgment, including an order for £10,000 each in damages on the basis that about 20 copies of the book were sold into the English jurisdiction via the web, and one particular chapter was also accessible online here.

But now, New York’s new Libel Terrorism Protection Act declares that foreign libel judgments in such cases are unenforceable over there unless the foreign defamation law provides the same generous free speech protection enjoyed in the state. The Act has retrospective effect.

Finally, knowing how difficult it can be for journalists to persuade companies to comment on wrongdoing, it was refreshing to read Section 10 of the Corporate Manslaughter and Homicide Act 2007.

It enables courts to make a “publicity order” – yes, the opposite of the ubiquitous “reporting restriction” – requiring an organisation to publicise in a specified manner any conviction for corporate manslaughter or homicide. Failure to comply can lead to a separate conviction and a fine.

Unfortunately, whereas most of the Act came into force earlier this week, no date has been set for the commencement of Section 10 – but it’s something for reporters to look forward to and perhaps savour.

Solicitor Nigel Hanson is a member of Foot Anstey’s media team.
To contact Tony Jaffa or Nigel Hanson telephone 0800 0731 411 or e-mail [email protected] or [email protected]