Lord Lester's libel reform bill

Lord Lester is introducing a Private Member's Bill on libel reform to the House of Lords this Thursday.

He was interwiewed on Radio 4's Today programme this morning about the bill and you can listen to the it again here.

The Bill, he said, would 'assist' the government in looking at reform of the libel laws. He said it would include measures requiring claimants and corporate claimants to show actual damage - something they are not required to do at the moment, damage is 'presumed.'

He said the Bill would also require libel trials to be heard by a judge alone. It would also examine libel defences such as privilege. He pointed out that the last reform of the law was in 1996, with the Defamation Act of that year. This was, he said, before the spread of the internet, web hosts, bloggers and so on, all of whom are affected by libel laws.

Lord Lester has been active in this area for some time and has been planning his defamation reform bill last year, as reported in The Times.

It will be interesting to see the details of his Bill this week. All the major parties gave commitments to libel reform in their manifestoes. The Lib Dems' was the most specific. It will also be interesting then to see what reception Lord Lester's bill gets from Government, because to have any hope of proceeding the Government will have to agree to giving it time in Parliament.

Tories and Lib Dems commit to libel reform too

Both the Conservatives and Lib Dems have included libel reform as a manifesto commitment.

Conservatives: "We will review and reform libel laws to protect freedom of speech, reduce costs and discourage libel tourism."

Lib Dems say they will: "Protect free speech, investigative journalism and academic peer-reviewed publishing through reform of the English and Welsh libel laws - including by requiring corporations to show damage and prove malice or recklessness, and by providing a robust responsible journalism defence."

So it's a commitment by all three main parties, with the Lib Dems being the most specific. Who will deliver though?

Is old law bad law? Nick Clegg thinks so, but he's wrong.

Nick Clegg was on Radio 4 Woman's Hour this morning and first question in was what he thought of MPs accused of expenses offences possibly using parliamentary privilege as a defence.

His quick answer was that it was wrong to use a defence dating back to 1689 in this day and age.

And some might agree, how can archaic laws possibly apply in this modern age.

But hang on, there's a lot of law out there and just because it's old, doesn't make it bad per se.

For instance, habeas corpus, the law which allows us to take action against unlawful detention by the state, dates all the way back to 1215. I doubt somehow that Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems would rush to do away with habeas corpus simply because it's a bit long in the tooth - albeit that European arrest warrants have rather undermined it already.

Yes, there's a lot of arcane law on the statute books, but to say that something is wrong simply because it's old is rather a foolish argument.

One could equally say that old laws have stood the test of time and so encapsulate fundamental principles which have prevented the need for repeal over the centuries.

Nick Clegg might have justifiable objections to the use of parliamentary privilege, but let's hear something a bit better thought out that simply saying: It's an old law, it shouldn't be allowed. That just insults our intelligence.

Furthermore, he might not like the use of a defence of parliamentary privilege, but surely that's a matter for a jury to decide upon. I would have thought that a Liberal leader, of all people, would defend principles like the presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial, even of his political opponents. Unless of course, that chance to score a few points before an election means the temporary setting aside of such principles.