The history of defamation law in England is somewhat obscure; civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent as far back as the Statute of Gloucester in the reign of Edward I (1272–1307).
English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or damages their reputation.
[1] There was no distinction drawn between written and spoken words, and when no monetary penalty was involved, such cases fell within the old jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts, which were only finally abolished in the eighteenth century.
The crime of scandalum magnatum (insulting the peers of the realm through slander or libel)[6] was established by the Statute of Westminster 1275, c. 34,[7] but the first instance of criminal libel is generally agreed to be the De Libellis Famosis case,[8] tried in the Star Chamber in the reign of James I by Edward Coke who, in his judgement on the case, said that a person's "good name ... ought to be more precious to him than his life".
[15] Most of these reforms have focused on trying to alter the law around the high burden of proof on defendants and the large damages awarded in past cases, which critics have said stifles free speech, and perceived overreach of English courts when they exercise jurisdiction in cases which in reality have little connection to the UK, giving rise to 'libel tourism'.
English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual (or individuals; under English law companies are legal persons, and allowed to bring suit for defamation)[19][20][21] in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.
[31][32] Section 1 of the Defamation Act 1952 had allowed the "broadcasting of words by means of wireless telegraphy" to be considered publication in permanent form.
[37] In certain instances, including but not limited to those involving public interests or responsible journalism, the burden of proof will be increasingly complex and require additional proceedings that may remain ongoing for years and come at significant costs.
The politician and journalist Michael Foot had printed an article in Tribune, a left-wing newspaper, condemning the London Evening Standard for unethically publishing a certain story.
These have to be "fair and accurate"; as Lord Denning stated in Associated Newspaper Ltd v Dingle, if the writer "garnishes" and "embellishes" such reports with any form of circumstantial evidence, the defence cannot apply.
This expansion was confirmed in the case of Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe, and has been described as giving newspapers protections similar to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
But a defendant in any such action is not, by virtue of the said section 8(3), entitled to rely upon the defence of justification if the publication is proved to have been made with malice.
But concludes that, "we do not believe that such counter-arguments can explain, or indeed justify, a practice "whereby a plaintiff in an action for libel may recover a larger sum by way of damages for an injury to his reputation...than the damages awarded for pain and suffering to the victim of an industrial accident who has lost an eye..." In the ECHR case, Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. United Kingdom[50] the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg added to the criticism of awards given by juries.
In addition, it includes a requirement for claimants to show that they have suffered serious harm, which in the case of for-profit bodies is restricted to serious financial loss.
The judge argued that the Civil Procedure Rules encouraging "saving expense" and "ensuring that a case was dealt with expeditiously" supported a trial without jury.
[55][56] In 1989, Toby Low, 1st Baron Aldington initiated and won a record £1.5 million (plus £500,000 costs) in a libel case against Count Nikolai Tolstoy-Miloslavsky and Nigel Watts, who had accused him of war crimes in Austria during his involvement in the repatriation of the Cossacks at Lienz, Austria, at the end of World War II.
Beginning in 1986, London Greenpeace, a small environmental campaigning group, distributed a pamphlet entitled What's wrong with McDonald's: Everything they don't want you to know.
The pamphlet claimed that the McDonald's corporation sold unhealthy food, exploited its work force, practised unethical marketing of its products towards children, was cruel to animals, needlessly used up resources and created pollution with its packaging, and also was responsible for destroying the South American rain forests.
[79] Baba Jeet Singh Ji Maharaj sought to appeal an order stating that the subject-matter was a matter of religious doctrine on which the court could not rule.
[80] The Court of Appeal ordered Baba Jeet Singh to pay £250,000 as security for the costs of the proceedings; however he failed to do so and the case was ultimately struck out.
[85] David Walsh, co-author of L.A. Confidentiel, told the Press Gazette in 2012 that if not for English libel law, "Lance Armstrong might not have won the Tour De France seven times and the history of sport would be different and better".
[86] In addition to case law, there are numerous notable examples of authors and publishers refusing to print work out of fear of libel suits.
[89] After BBC television personality Jimmy Savile died, it came to light that hundreds of people accused him of having abused them when they were children.
[91][92] The Sunday Mirror neglected to publish a story in 1994 regarding two of his alleged victims (who did not want to be named at the time) because its lawyers were worried about the costs of a libel trial.
[97][98] Editors sometimes alluded to Savile's conduct with euphemisms due to his reputed litigiousness, describing him with terms such as "eccentric" or "strange".
In another case journalist Lynn Barber, having heard frequent rumours that he was a paedophile, asked him for a 1991 profile in The Independent on Sunday whether he "had a skeleton in his closet".
The question is, therefore, whether the law of defamation strikes the appropriate balance between allowing, for instance, newspapers sufficient freedom to engage in journalistic activity and, on the other hand, the right of private citizens not to suffer unwarranted intrusion.
An independent tort protecting privacy has been rejected in a number of cases including Kaye v Robertson in the Court of Appeal and again in the House of Lords in Wainwright v Home Office.
(Close date: 15 June 2011)[104] On 6 March 2013, a number of British authors and playwrights wrote an open letter to the leaders of the three biggest parties in the House of Commons, David Cameron, Nick Clegg, and Ed Miliband, calling them to ensure the Defamation Bill was passed.
The letter, organised English PEN, grew out of a concern that the bill has become threatened by political disputes over the results of the Leveson Inquiry.