(Source: Lawyer)It was an unusual invitation. When Carter-Ruck partners Nigel Tait and Guy Martin arrived at the Free Word Centre in Farringdon on 10 November, they were hardly surrounded by fans. That lunchtime was the launch of a campaign on libel reform by Index on Censorship and English Pen. Given that Carter- Ruck had been the subject of media opprobrium over its work seeking a super-injunction on the Trafigura case, Tait and Martin's appearance was, as Index on Censorship's Jo Glanville says, "brave".

"Well, we were invited," counters Tait. "Though it was a bit like putting your head in the lion's den."

The personal relations may be civilised, but the debate around the issue of libel reform is anything but cordial. Over the past year newspaper groups, publishers and human rights campaigners have been calling for reform of the English system, which they argue has created a pernicious market for libel tourism whereby claimants with virtually no connection with England are bringing cases in London.

As might be expected, the campaign has the explicit backing of senior newspaper lawyers such as Harvey Kass of Associated Newspapers, Alastair Brett of The Times and Gill Phillips of The Guardian, along with prominent media lawyers such as Finers Stephens Innocent partner Mark Stephens.

Ranged against them are the big guns of claimant lawyers. Schillings senior partner Keith Schilling declined to comment for this article, but Carter-Ruck's Tait is outspoken. "We have a vicious, aggressive press here," he says. "It's all great - until someone writes something false about you. As a general point almost every reform in this area of the law over the last 20 years has driven up costs and created work for lawyers. The exception to this is the Offer of Amends defence, which in my view has proved a resounding success." The campaigners are seeking 10 basic reforms to libel law and practice in this country (see column). The recommendations include the argument that the Duke of Brunswick rule (based on an 1849 case, which holds that multiple publications of the same story means multiple libels) should be abolished and instead a single publication rule be introduced, as in the US. In the US this rule means there is only one act of publication, which is when a story first appears, and only one locus of action - the place of publication. Four years ago the Department for Constitutional Affairs (now the Ministry of Justice) said it was looking into reviewing that law, but nothing has yet happened.

"This is a law that is so out of date that it didn't just miss the internet revolution but the first revolution in mass communication," argues Index on Censorship's Glanville. "It's ridiculous that every hit on a [web] story constitutes a fresh libel. There's a groundswell and a desire for change."

Tait counters: "There are good reasons why it should be preserved, with some minor adjustments. We know of cases where a damaging libel hasn't come to a client's attention for over a year since first publication, or where the defendant behind the first publication was not worth suing."

However, Tait softens his stance slightly on other points made by the campaigners. Index on Censorship argues that London has become an international libel tribunal and that no case should be heard in this jurisdiction unless at least 10 per cent of the copies of the relevant publication have been circulated there. "Many countries in the world do not offer fair trials, particularly for opponents of the regime," Tait replies. "I do, however, think it would be sensible for Parliament to look carefully at libel tourism given the frequent criticisms that are being made."

Similarly he agrees with Index on Censorship's charge that there are few viable alternatives to a full trial. "I think the idea of libel tribunals for some cases, particularly involving the internet, is a good one," he says. "I doubt, however, that the Government would be prepared to fund the cost."

Copyright: Centaur Communications Ltd. and licensors

(c) 2009 Lawyer. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All rights Reserved.

A service of YellowBrix, Inc.