AddThis SmartLayers

Licensed to kill but no licence to publish

James Bond

While privacy tightens its grip on the British press, politicians abroad are considering legislation against our restrictive libel laws.

The double-whammy of rampant privacy rules and claimant-friendly libel laws is evident from the latest decisions of the Press Complaints Commission, the High Court in London, and politicians in America.

Film star Daniel Craig has persuaded the PCC that the Mail on Sunday breached the Code by identifying the location of a new apartment he bought in North London.

The article included a photograph of the building, in which the flat is situated, and also identified its district and a nearby park. However, it did not say which particular flat the 007 actor had purchased or contain any other information about the address.

The PCC found a breach of the Clause 3 (Privacy). It noted that Craig had previously needed to take action against certain people who posed a security threat and had sometimes received undesirable attention from fans. He was also worried about security for his partner and child.

However, the PCC felt no further sanctions were required since the paper had removed the article from its website, offered to apologise and agreed not to republish the information.

Murderer

Meanwhile, press identification of a triple murderer has been gagged by a High Court injunction issued by Mr Justice Silber. The convict, who has served a long jail sentence after admitting three murders years ago, is awaiting a Parole Board decision about his future.

His lawyers sought the anonymity order because of concerns that media coverage might undermine plans for his release.

It follows a privacy injunction issued by the High Court of Northern Ireland recently, which prohibits the publication of any unpixelated photograph of convicted killer Kenneth Callaghan (who is also being assessed for release), or publication of a photograph of any serving prisoner who is, or has been, assessed for release at a particular assessment unit, unless the Northern Ireland Office is given 48 hours’ prior notice or all distinguishing features are obscured.

Family courts

Worrying though this lack of transparency in our courts may be, a Court of Appeal judge has said that open reporting in family proceedings would have done nothing to avoid a suspected miscarriage of justice involving a couple who had three of their four children taken away for adoption.

Mark and Nicola Webster had three children taken into care by Norfolk County Council five years ago after a court, sitting in private, decided they were unfit parents.

Evidence subsequently revealed that injuries suffered by one of the children may have been caused accidentally as a result of vitamin deficiency.

However, Lord Justice Wall said: “It is, in my judgment, idle to pretend that transparency, or the presence of journalists in court, would have made any difference to the outcome in this case.”

Foreign influence

Not everyone is taking the strictures of English media law lying down, however. American politicians are being proactive about the perceived threat that our law poses to free speech elsewhere.

A new federal law, the Free Speech Protection Act, is currently being considered by the U.S. Senate.

If passed, it would protect writers and publishers in the States by preventing the enforcement of foreign libel judgments where the words or content in issue would not amount to libel under America law.

The proposed law was triggered by the case of New York-based author Dr Rachel Ehrenfeld, who was successfully sued for libel in London over a book on terrorism funding, of which 23 copies were sold into the UK via the internet.

Dr Ehrenfeld declined to respond to the claim, and was faced with a summary judgment for £30,000 in damages, plus costs, for enforcement in her own country.

Besides the federal law proposal, the states of New York and Illinois have already enacted similar laws against unpalatable foreign libel judgments, and California is also considering enacting such legislation.

Claimants in English law, unlike American law, do not have to prove falsity or malice. They also do not have to prove damage to reputation.

If words are deemed to be defamatory, harm is presumed. Freedom of expression is greater in America due to safeguards in the First Amendment of its Constitution.

Over here, however, the media must work within existing UK and European laws on the right to reputation and the right to privacy. One ray of light is the British Government’s recently launched consultation paper on proposals to limit legal costs in libel litigation.

Justice Minister Bridget Prentice said such costs should be “more proportionate and reasonable”.

She added: “We need to ensure that people’s right to freedom of expression is not infringed, and media organisations continue to report on matters of public concern.”

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