British lawmakers urge laws curtailing libel tourism

In a report published today, the committee recommends a change in the law to allow cases to be heard in the High Court only if the main publication of an alleged libel was in Britain.

Mr Justice Eady, the judge who has heard many of the most controversial libel cases of recent years, was singled out for criticism in the report. One of the report’s authors said “a one-man libel industry” was operating in Britain.

It also suggested a series of other recommendations to curb the “chilling effect” of libel cases on free speech, including severe restrictions on “no win, no fee” arrangements for lawyers and changes in the burden of proof in corporate libel suits.

John Whittingdale MP, the Conservative chairman of the committee, said: “It should be a matter of profound concern that the UK is now regarded as the jurisdiction of choice for litigants to bring libel actions, even when there is no obvious connection with this country.

“There is a growing clamour of voices calling for reform of our libel laws in order to reduce the cost of mounting and defending libel actions.

“Until this is addressed it will continue to have a stifling effect on press freedom and the Government should now act swiftly to do so.”

The committee produced its 162-page report after hearing evidence from more than 40 witnesses, including the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, several newspaper editors and senior policemen, as it investigated libel, privacy and press standards.

As well as recommending that libel litigants should only be able to sue in the country where the libel was mainly published, the committee also recommended that in future lawyers who represent clients on a no win, no fee basis should only be able to recoup 10 per cent of their costs from the defendant, rather than the current 100 per cent, if they win their case.

A recent study by Oxford University found that libel cases in this country cost more than 100 times more than similar cases heard on the continent, meaning many defendants agree to pay damages, rather than risk ruinous libel defences, even when they are in the right.

The report also recommended that in cases where businesses sue for libel, the burden of proof should be reversed so that they must prove they have suffered damage as a result of an unfounded allegation, rather than the defendant having to prove that the allegation was true.

The Labour MP Paul Farrelly, one of the report’s authors, said: “There is an opportunity for a thoroughgoing reform of our libel laws and we hope that that will be pursued.

“The issue of libel tourism has reduced the reputation of the courts in London… some judges are effectively operating a one-man libel industry.”

The report’s findings – which will now be studied by the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw – were welcomed by lawyers and MPs who have long campaigned for changes in the law.

The Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris, who is chairman of the Parliamentary Campaign for Libel Reform, said: “The coalition of writers, academics, scientists and performers calling for change has now been joined by parliamentarians, and the momentum in favour of reforming our libel laws seems unstoppable.”

The committee also made recommendations on the issue of privacy, calling for an end to “draconian” super-injunctions of the kind obtained recently by the England footballer John Terry.

After hearing evidence relating to a phone-tapping scandal which resulted in a former News of the World reporter being jailed, it suggested changes to the newspaper regulatory body, the Press Complaints Commission, to prevent similar cases happening in future.

Copyright 2010 Telegraph Media Group Limited