Latest news with #DefamationAct
The Herald Scotland
30-07-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Shameful: our libel laws are a plaything for the rich
The law, as it then stood in relation to libel and privacy, sought to ensure that everyone, no matter their means or status, was able to protect their reputation, while those guilty of wrongdoing could be exposed. Those lofty ideals, it appears, have since been dumped on the spike of journalistic history along with hot metal, paperboys and passive smoking. Two recent cases illustrate starkly how far we have moved since those days, and in an entirely wrong direction. This week Brigitte Macron, the wife of the French President, filed a lawsuit against the right-wing podcaster Candace Ownes, over claims that she could be a man. Meanwhile Donald Trump has filed a $10 billion (£7.5bn) defamation lawsuit against Dow Jones – parent company of The Wall Street Journal – and its owner Rupert Murdoch, over claims that he sent a "bawdy" birthday note to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Irrespective of what you think about the merits of such claims, it is unlikely either would have been brought had the plaintiffs not been financially well endowed. French First Lady Brigitte Macron, seen here with husband Emmanuel Macron, has filed a lawsuit against the right-wing podcaster Candace Ownes over claims that she could be a man. (Image: PA) While neither of the cases will be heard in Britain, they might easily have done, such is the popularity of this country as a favoured jurisdiction for libel suits brought by the rich and powerful. As a result, London has earned the reputation of being the "libel capital of the world" with an estimated 90% success rate in lawsuits encouraging the growth of "libel tourism", where plaintiffs file cases in even if the disputed statements had minimal impact here. Defamation cases in Britain are the most expensive in Europe, with defendants bearing most costs, while plaintiffs often face little financial risk even if they lose. It was anticipated that the introduction of the 2013 Defamation Act would reduce the number of claims – because it imposed a 'serious harm' threshold for claimants – but, by 2019, there had been a 127% rise in cases. Even unsuccessful lawsuits can drain a media company's resources, discouraging investigative journalism. The result is a system where the rich and powerful can manipulate the courts to stifle scrutiny, leaving the public uninformed about potential abuses. As a corollary there has rarely, if ever, been a time when it has been more difficult for ordinary people, of modest means, to challenge in the courts what is written or broadcast about them. Legal Aid is not available for defamation cases meaning that, if you bring an action, you will have to fund yourself to meet the court's costs, pay your own lawyer and, potentially, meet the costs of the person you are suing, even if you win. Tactical application of the law and the use of cynical lawfare tactics such as SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) and superinjunctions mean that wrongdoers – those whom the law should work to expose – have never been better protected. The burden of proof in British cases heavily favours claimants, making it perilous for journalists to report on allegations. Unlike in the US, where plaintiffs must prove 'falsity' and 'malice', English and Scottish law place the onus on publishers to defend their reporting – often requiring exhaustive evidence, even when allegations are credible. This creates a chilling effect, where media organisations avoid naming powerful figures unless they possess irrefutable proof, fostering a culture of "open secrets", where misconduct is widely known but legally unmentionable. Channel 4 News collaborated with The Guardian and The New York Times to investigate how Cambridge Analytica harvested Facebook users' personal data to influence the 2016 Brexit referendum. Its then editor Ben De Pear recalls how Facebook responded when journalists sought comment: 'They delayed until the last possible moment. Their statement was published and shared with other news outlets before we even received it. They dodged questions. And their lawyers bombarded us with 30 or 40 pages of dense legal jargon.' He added: 'Usually, the longer the response, the emptier it is. Skilled journalists and editors can see through it, but it still wastes time and creates unnecessary stress.' Catherine Belton's 2020 book, Putin's People, prompted multiple lawsuits from Russian oligarchs and state-owned oil company Rosneft, in 2021. Four cases reached preliminary hearings, with HarperCollins settling claims by billionaires Petr Aven, Mikhail Fridman and Roman Abramovich over alleged inaccuracies. The former FT writer made minor amendments to future editions, though HarperCollins maintained the text was not defamatory. Separately, Rosneft's claims were judged to lack merit, leading the company to drop its case, while Abramovich's claims were partially dismissed and he settled, with no damages paid and only minor clarifications made to the text. Read more by Carlos Alba Belton and HarperCollins said they faced distorted media narratives, which plaintiffs exploited to claim victory, despite minimal changes to the book. The writer argued for stronger protections against SLAPPs to ensure accountability and press freedom, warning that lax regulations left the UK vulnerable to legal abuse by wealthy foreign actors. Unlike when I started in journalism, investigative reporting can now seem more like an expensive hobby than a profession. You can spend months meticulously gathering documents, interviewing sources, and crafting an article – only to receive a threatening legal letter from a high-priced law firm, forcing you to gut your work or abandon it entirely. It's not that newspapers and their lawyers doubt the accuracy of your reporting – it's simply that they can't afford the crippling cost of a lawsuit. What makes the system even more shameful, according to some of those who have been through it, is that victory in court can offer little solace. Even after enduring years of stress and mounting legal bills, a win can feel pyrrhic. Britain's libel laws ensure a bitter irony: even when you win, you lose. The system punishes persistence, leaving truth-tellers drained and disillusioned. Carlos Alba is a journalist, author, and PR consultant at Carlos Alba Media. His latest novel, There's a Problem with Dad, explores the issue of undiagnosed autism among older people
RTÉ News
08-07-2025
- Politics
- RTÉ News
EC welcomes steps taken by Ireland to reform litigation costs
The European Commission has welcomed steps taken here to reform litigation costs to improve access to justice. In its annual report on law developments across the EU, it notes moves to reform the Defamation Act to improve the professional environment for journalists. This year's Rule of Law Report is the first to be published under the Commissioner for Democracy, Justice, the Rule of Law, and Consumer Protection, Michael McGrath. It says there has been progress in providing appropriate funding for public service media, supporting its remit while safeguarding its independence. The Commission also encourages Ireland to complete ongoing reforms, including efforts to address legal obstacles to funding for civil society organisations, as part of the reform of the Electoral Act. Commissioner McGrath said: "We cannot ignore that in some member states, serious concerns remain. "These are addressed through the recommendations in this year's report. The recommendations form the basis for constructive dialogue. "In our union, dialogue always comes first – but it must lead to results. That is why we pair dialogue with decisive action. Where necessary, I am ready to use all available tools, including infringement proceedings, to ensure the rule of law is upheld."
Wales Online
04-06-2025
- General
- Wales Online
BBC granted time to consider appeal in Gerry Adams case before paying all costs
BBC granted time to consider appeal in Gerry Adams case before paying all costs Mr Adams took the BBC to court over a 2016 episode of its Spotlight programme Gerry Adams (Image: Brian Lawless/PA ) The BBC has been granted time to consider taking an appeal of a jury decision which found it had defamed Gerry Adams, before paying all costs and damages to the former Sinn Fein leader. Mr Adams took the BBC to court over a 2016 episode of its Spotlight programme, and an accompanying online story, which he said defamed him by alleging he sanctioned the killing of former Sinn Fein official Denis Donaldson, for which he denies any involvement. On Friday, a jury at the High Court in Dublin found in his favour and awarded him 100,000 euros (£84,000) after determining that was the meaning of words included in the programme and article. The BBC will also have to pay Mr Adams's legal costs. However, the broadcaster was granted a stay on paying out the full costs and damages to allow it time to consider whether to lodge an appeal. The stay was subject to paying half the damages (50,000 euros or £42,000) and 250,000 euros (£210,000) towards solicitors' fees. Article continues below Eoin McCullough SC, for the broadcaster, told trial judge Mr Justice Alexander Owens on Tuesday that he was applying for a stay pending a decision on whether to take an appeal. He said his client had not determined if it would appeal, but added that he was seeking a stay until the end of the appeal period. In making its decision, the jury also found the BBC's actions were not in good faith and the corporation had not acted in a fair and reasonable way. When asked by the judge for what grounds an appeal could be taken, Mr McCullough said the court had rejected applications by the defence on matters put to the jury relating to Section 26 of the Defamation Act. In particular, he questioned the decision to reject an application to withdraw the question of "good faith" to the jury – and the order in which that question was asked of the members. The jury was asked the good faith question before making a decision on whether the publication was fair and reasonable. Mr McCullough said it was inevitable that the jury would find against him on the matter of fair and reasonable action once it had already found against him on good faith. Mr Justice Alexander Owens agreed with counsel that there may be grounds for an appeal on the fact that the jury was first asked to consider whether the actions were in good faith before considering whether the actions were fair and reasonable. Tom Hogan SC, for Mr Adams, said that if the court was going to grant a stay, it should be on the basis of something being paid towards the award. Mr Justice Alexander Owens granted the stay subject to the conditions that 50,000 euros be paid towards damages and 250,000 euros towards the solicitors' fees. However, this can also be appealed against. Mr McCullough had raised other potential grounds for appeal, including the court's decision not to allow Mr Donaldson's daughter to give another "version" of matters given in evidence by the family's former solicitor Ciaran Shiels. He also said an appeal may be grounded on the exclusion of the evidence of Austin Stack and historian Eunan O'Halpin. He said an appeal could further be grounded on the defendants being excluded from taking on the issue of whether Mr Adams was in the IRA, arguing that this could be put forward as significant acts of misconduct which would speak towards reputation. Mr Adams denies being a member of the IRA. Mr McCullough also raised comments by the judge which referred to newspaper reports about Mr Adams that were called upon during cross-examination as "rot" and "blather". He said that based on all of these issues, the jury determination of a 100,000 euro quantum for damages was itself unsustainable, further stating that the circulation of the programme and article was "very small" and combined with a "very damaged reputation". Mr Hogan said he could not say that there were not some points that were arguable, but added he did not want to "fight the appeal now". He said there was a "very significant inequality of arms in this case" and questioned whether the application was strategic. He said an appeal had to be brought on a bona fide basis. Mr McCullough said it was "surprising" if not a "little frustrating" to hear a suggestion that he was acting short of good faith. He said all he had said was that his client had not made up its mind and that any appeal should be allowed to proceed in the usual way. He had argued that it may be difficult and complicated to get the amounts paid out back should he prevail on appeal. Mr Justice Alexander Owens said he was "not really persuaded" on the grounds of the appeal, other than the order of the questions on "good faith" and "fair and reasonable". He made the order of the payment of partial damages and costs. It is open to the BBC to seek a further stay against that payment at the Court of Appeal. Last week, the director of BBC Northern Ireland Adam Smyth said the broadcaster has insurance and "makes financial provision for ongoing and anticipated legal claims". Separately, the counsel discussed whether the article – which remains online – could be geoblocked in the Republic of Ireland. On the issue of seeking an injunction, Mr Hogan said he had been discussing the matter with Mr McCullough and that it may be technologically possible. He added that there had been a lot of talk over the weekend over BBC services being blocked in the Republic of Ireland. Mr Justice Alexander Owens replied: "I heard that, I don't imagine that will happen." The judge questioned what jurisdiction he had to make an order on the BBC, which is abroad. He added that it had been put to the jurors that he would not be able to make such an order and that their award of damages was the remedy on the matter. Article continues below Mr Hogan agreed that it was not a matter to be decided on Tuesday.
Extra.ie
04-06-2025
- General
- Extra.ie
BBC given time to consider appeal in Gerry Adams libel case
The BBC has been given time to consider appealing a decision which found it had defamed Gerry Adams, before paying costs and damages to the former Sinn Féin leader. Mr Adams took the BBC to court over a 2016 episode of Spotlight, and an accompanying online story, which he said defamed him by alleging he sanctioned the killing of former Sinn Féin official and MI5 agent Denis Donaldson, for which he denies any involvement. On Friday, a jury at the High Court found in his favour and awarded him €100,000 after determining that was the meaning of words included in the programme and article. Former Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams. Brian Lawless/PA Wire The BBC will also have to pay Mr Adams's costs. However, the broadcaster was granted a stay on paying the full costs and damages, allowing it time to consider lodging an appeal. The stay was subject to paying half the damages – €50,000 – and €250,000 towards solicitors' fees. Eoin McCullough SC, for the BBC, told trial judge Alexander Owens yesterday that he was applying for a stay. He said his client had not determined if it would appeal but added that he was seeking a stay until the end of the appeal period. In making its decision, the jury also found the BBC's actions were not in good faith and it had not acted in a fair and reasonable way. Eoin McCullough SC, representing the BBC in their libel case against former Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams. Pic: Tom Honan When asked by the judge for what grounds an appeal could be taken, Mr McCullough said the court had rejected applications by the defence on matters put to the jury relating to Section 26 of the Defamation Act. In particular, he questioned the decision to reject an application to withdraw the question of 'good faith' to the jury, and the order in which that question was asked of the members. The jury was asked the good faith question before making a decision on whether the publication was fair and reasonable. Former Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams. Pic: Collins Courts Mr McCullough said it was inevitable the jury would find against him on the matter of fair and reasonable action once it had already found against him on good faith. Judge Owens agreed with counsel that there may be grounds for an appeal on the fact that the jury was first asked to consider if the actions were in good faith before considering if the actions were fair and reasonable. Tom Hogan SC, for Mr Adams, said if the court was going to grant a stay, it should be on the basis of something being paid towards the award. Tom Hogan, Barrister for former Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams. Pic: Tom Honan Judge Owens granted the stay subject to the conditions that €50,000 be paid towards damages and €250,000 towards the solicitors' fees. However, this can also be appealed against. Mr McCullough had raised other potential grounds for appeal, including the decision not to allow Mr Donaldson's daughter to give another 'version' of matters given in evidence by the family's former solicitor, Ciarán Shiels. Mr Hogan said there had been talk about BBC services being blocked in the Republic. Judge Owens replied: 'I heard that.. I don't imagine that will happen.
Rhyl Journal
04-06-2025
- Business
- Rhyl Journal
BBC granted time to consider appeal in Gerry Adams case before paying all costs
Mr Adams took the BBC to court over a 2016 episode of its Spotlight programme, and an accompanying online story, which he said defamed him by alleging he sanctioned the killing of former Sinn Fein official Denis Donaldson, for which he denies any involvement. On Friday, a jury at the High Court in Dublin found in his favour and awarded him 100,000 euros (£84,000) after determining that was the meaning of words included in the programme and article. The BBC will also have to pay Mr Adams's legal costs. However, the broadcaster was granted a stay on paying out the full costs and damages to allow it time to consider whether to lodge an appeal. The stay was subject to paying half the damages (50,000 euros or £42,000) and 250,000 euros (£210,000) towards solicitors' fees. Eoin McCullough SC, for the broadcaster, told trial judge Mr Justice Alexander Owens on Tuesday that he was applying for a stay pending a decision on whether to take an appeal. He said his client had not determined if it would appeal, but added that he was seeking a stay until the end of the appeal period. In making its decision, the jury also found the BBC's actions were not in good faith and the corporation had not acted in a fair and reasonable way. When asked by the judge for what grounds an appeal could be taken, Mr McCullough said the court had rejected applications by the defence on matters put to the jury relating to Section 26 of the Defamation Act. In particular, he questioned the decision to reject an application to withdraw the question of 'good faith' to the jury – and the order in which that question was asked of the members. The jury was asked the good faith question before making a decision on whether the publication was fair and reasonable. Mr McCullough said it was inevitable that the jury would find against him on the matter of fair and reasonable action once it had already found against him on good faith. Mr Justice Alexander Owens agreed with counsel that there may be grounds for an appeal on the fact that the jury was first asked to consider whether the actions were in good faith before considering whether the actions were fair and reasonable. Tom Hogan SC, for Mr Adams, said that if the court was going to grant a stay, it should be on the basis of something being paid towards the award. Mr Justice Alexander Owens granted the stay subject to the conditions that 50,000 euros be paid towards damages and 250,000 euros towards the solicitors' fees. However, this can also be appealed against. Mr McCullough had raised other potential grounds for appeal, including the court's decision not to allow Mr Donaldson's daughter to give another 'version' of matters given in evidence by the family's former solicitor Ciaran Shiels. He also said an appeal may be grounded on the exclusion of the evidence of Austin Stack and historian Eunan O'Halpin. He said an appeal could further be grounded on the defendants being excluded from taking on the issue of whether Mr Adams was in the IRA, arguing that this could be put forward as significant acts of misconduct which would speak towards reputation. Mr Adams denies being a member of the IRA. Mr McCullough also raised comments by the judge which referred to newspaper reports about Mr Adams that were called upon during cross-examination as 'rot' and 'blather'. He said that based on all of these issues, the jury determination of a 100,000 euro quantum for damages was itself unsustainable, further stating that the circulation of the programme and article was 'very small' and combined with a 'very damaged reputation'. Mr Hogan said he could not say that there were not some points that were arguable, but added he did not want to 'fight the appeal now'. He said there was a 'very significant inequality of arms in this case' and questioned whether the application was strategic. He said an appeal had to be brought on a bona fide basis. Mr McCullough said it was 'surprising' if not a 'little frustrating' to hear a suggestion that he was acting short of good faith. He said all he had said was that his client had not made up its mind and that any appeal should be allowed to proceed in the usual way. He had argued that it may be difficult and complicated to get the amounts paid out back should he prevail on appeal. Mr Justice Alexander Owens said he was 'not really persuaded' on the grounds of the appeal, other than the order of the questions on 'good faith' and 'fair and reasonable'. He made the order of the payment of partial damages and costs. It is open to the BBC to seek a further stay against that payment at the Court of Appeal. Last week, the director of BBC Northern Ireland Adam Smyth said the broadcaster has insurance and 'makes financial provision for ongoing and anticipated legal claims'. Separately, the counsel discussed whether the article – which remains online – could be geoblocked in the Republic of Ireland. On the issue of seeking an injunction, Mr Hogan said he had been discussing the matter with Mr McCullough and that it may be technologically possible. He added that there had been a lot of talk over the weekend over BBC services being blocked in the Republic of Ireland. Mr Justice Alexander Owens replied: 'I heard that, I don't imagine that will happen.' The judge questioned what jurisdiction he had to make an order on the BBC, which is abroad. He added that it had been put to the jurors that he would not be able to make such an order and that their award of damages was the remedy on the matter. Mr Hogan agreed that it was not a matter to be decided on Tuesday.
