UK: Defamation Law a Flawed Improvement

Feature

Related Articles

Months After Estonia Drops Swedbank Case, Trove of Office Memos Show Laundering Was Open Joke
One of Tallinn’s most notorious corruption scandals came to a quiet conclusion this year when a case against Swedbank was thrown out on a technicality. But hundreds of newly released files show bank managers routinely flouted anti-money laundering protocols in an effort to assist high-flying Russian clients.
Azerbaijan's COP29 Organizers Criticized For Oil Ties, Other Potential Conflicts of Interest
In authoritarian Azerbaijan, corporate ownership records are not publicly available — and transparency campaigners have raised concerns that those tasked with leading and organizing the world’s most important annual climate event do not have to declare potential conflicts of interest under the current U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Mining Cement in Misery: The Human Cost of Paraguay’s Construction Boom
Months After Estonia Drops Swedbank Case, Trove of Office Memos Show Laundering Was Open Joke
One of Tallinn’s most notorious corruption scandals came to a quiet conclusion this year when a case against Swedbank was thrown out on a technicality. But hundreds of newly released files show bank managers routinely flouted anti-money laundering protocols in an effort to assist high-flying Russian clients.
Azerbaijan's COP29 Organizers Criticized For Oil Ties, Other Potential Conflicts of Interest
In authoritarian Azerbaijan, corporate ownership records are not publicly available — and transparency campaigners have raised concerns that those tasked with leading and organizing the world’s most important annual climate event do not have to declare potential conflicts of interest under the current U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Mining Cement in Misery: The Human Cost of Paraguay’s Construction Boom
April 29, 2013

Mujtaba Ali

United Kingdom defamation legislation reforms became law on April 25, replacing a law known for its “chilling effect on freedom of expression and the stifling of legitimate debate,” a UK Ministry of Justice press release said. But shortcomings in the legislation remain.

The Defamation Act of 2013 increases protections for individuals and companies including broadcasters and journalists. The act bars cases brought against individuals who live outside the United Kingdom, which were a major source of “libel tourism” in the UK, the Guardian reported. The act will require that allegations of libel must include evidence of “serious harm,” including financial damages, to be heard by a court.

The former law allowed wealthy individuals from other countries to pursue systematic allegations of libel against journalists, critics and whistleblowers in UK courts, despite the free-speech protections in the accused individuals’ countries of origin. Libel tourism in the UK became so pronounced that the United States passed legislation in August 2011 to protect its citizens from the practice. Known as the SPEECH Act, the legislation frees US courts to refuse to enforce foreign libel case rulings, if the ruling conflicts with US free speech protections.

Proponents for a stronger version of the act had pushed for an amendment addressing public services that are outsourced to private companies. Under current UK law, public officials and offices are not allowed to file libel charges related to the execution of their public duties. Private companies to which the government outsources public services, from healthcare options to school lunches and certain prison operations, are not subject to the same limitations.

These private companies are paid by the UK government, and by extension UK taxpayers, to provide public services. Without an amendment to extend the same limitations on libel allegations to private companies performing public duties, the new Defamation Act will effectively allow taxpayer money to continue to be used to silence critics, Kristy Hughes of the Index on Censorship told the Guardian.

The act allows for freer expression of criticism and valid complaint. The stronger rules on demonstrating serious financial damage before a case can be heard will further protect individuals from frivolous libel suits. A UK Ministry of Justice official told OCCRP the new law will mean stricter tests to ensure claims brought before UK courts are serious, and not simply an attempt to dodge protections elsewhere in the world.