Yesterday, a Statutory Instrument that would have reformed costs in English libel cases was stalled at committee stage after several MPs voted to block a reduction of lawyers’ success fees from a 100 per cent mark-up to 10 per cent. Here, exclusively, Tom Watson explains why.
Libel reform campaigners, anxious for progress, understandably pressing for great change, do a disservice to the campaign if they focus their ire on the people who rejected the ill-conceived proposals, hurriedly presented yesterday in Committee Room 12 of the House of Commons.
Briefly, let me make the case for the libel reform I want to see.
- End libel tourism.
- I want the burden of proof rule to be reversed for big corporations who bully writers, creators and scientists.
- I would like to see a change to statute of limitations and the multiple publications rule that’s not fit for purpose in the digital age.
- I’d like to see a defence of “responsible journalism” defined in law.
- And I’d like the law of “criminal libel” to be junked in Scotland as it was South of the border last year.
I came to these conclusions, having heard evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee for our inquiry ‘Press Standards, Privacy and Libel’.
Continue reading