Cooke & Anor v MGN Ltd & Anor [2014] EWHC 2831 (QB) (13 August 2014)

Cooke & Anor v MGN Ltd & Anor [2014] EWHC 2831 (QB) (13 August 2014):

"34. The 2013 Act was the product of extensive parliamentary scrutiny. A draft Bill was produced in March 2011 for public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses. The Joint Committee reported on the draft Bill on 19th October 2011. The Defamation Bill itself was then presented to the House of Commons on 20th May 2012 and after detailed consideration in both Houses received Royal Assent on 25th April 2013.

35. Both Mr Tomlinson and Mr Price have sought to refer to Hansard to cite remarks made in the course of the Bill's passage through Parliament, relying on Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593. I consider that it is proper to refer to the Ministerial foreword to the draft Bill, to the Joint Committee's report on the draft Bill, and to the Explanatory Notes to the Act, to identify the mischief at which it was aimed. I also consider that the parliamentary history, and in particular any respect in which the Act differs from the original draft Bill, may be highly illuminating. It is also proper to refer to statements made by the promoters of the Bill (that is to say the sponsoring minister in each House or the proposer of any successful amendment) in order to resolve a genuine ambiguity in the Act." 'via Blog this'

Cooke & Anor v MGN Ltd & Anor [2014] EWHC 2831 (QB) (13 August 2014)

Cooke & Anor v MGN Ltd & Anor [2014] EWHC 2831 (QB) (13 August 2014): Mr Bean rules on the Defamation Act - the first case heard in QBD:

"28. The Act only applies to defamation claims where the cause of action has arisen since the beginning of 2014. Mr Tomlinson and Mr Price tell me this is the first case in which the interpretation of the Act has come before the courts.

29. There was originally a suggestion in correspondence that Midland Heart are a "body that trades for profit" and that therefore by virtue of s 1(2) they could only succeed if they showed that the publication has caused or was likely to cause serious financial loss. However, by the time the issues to be tried by me were formulated the parties were agreed that s 1(2) does not apply in the present case, although its terms are arguably of some assistance in construing s 1(1).

30. It is common ground that s 1(1) requires a claimant to show that serious harm has been caused or is likely to be caused to his reputation. It is not enough to show that the publication has caused or is likely to cause serious distress or injury to feelings." 'via Blog this'

Historical censorship of media - and 'golden years' 1832-1912

Josiah Wedgwood, MP, protested in the House against the institution by the Government of prosecutions of the Press. His speech was a scathing attack on those who were intent on returning to the political prosecutions of a century before. He noted that from 1832 to 1912 – Cobbett to Bowman – prosecutions of the Press of this nature had ceased and that it was from the trial of Cobbett that the freedom of the press really dated. 'The best men in every age have been against such prosecutions', he observed, adding the warning, 'there has always been some provocation, some fear inspiring prosecution. The clamour of propertied classes has again and again deafened the Government to the still, quiet voice of reason and liberty.'

McSithigh papers available online

Open access to 2013 work: "Open access versions of a couple of my 2013/4 publications and talks have recently been made available through the University of Edinburgh. These versions are the best possible permitted under the terms of the relevant publishers –  peer reviewed but not fully formatted for (print) publication in the journal in question. They are accessible without registration or charge to all.
Earlier publications continue to be available via my SSRN page without a need for a subscription, in various forms." 'via Blog this'

Here comes the judge – puff piece on IPSO's new chair

Here comes the judge – the maverick aiming to tame Britain's raucous press | From the Guardian | The Guardian: ""To those who have voiced doubts as to the ability of Ipso to meet the demands of independent regulation, I say that I have spent over 40 years pursuing the profession of barrister and judge whose hallmarks are independent action and independent judgment. I do not intend to do away with that independence now."

Moses was subjected to what is understood to have been a rigorous interview for the Ipso post, described by one of the participants as "a robust going-over that took him somewhat by surprise."" 'via Blog this'

Joint declaration on universality and the right to freedom of expression

Joint declaration on universality and the right to freedom of… · Article 19: "Certain types of legal restrictions on freedom of expression can never be justified by reference to local traditions, culture and values. Where they exist, such restrictions should be repealed and anyone who has been sanctioned under them should be fully absolved and be afforded adequate redress for the violation of their human rights. These include:

                          i.    Laws which protect religions against criticism or prohibit the expression of dissenting religious beliefs.             ii.    Laws which prohibit debate about issues of concern or interest to minorities and other groups which have suffered from historical discrimination or prohibit speech which is an element of the identity or personal dignity of these individuals and/or groups.
                     

iii.    Laws which provide for special protection against criticism for officials, institutions, historical figures, or national or religious symbols." 'via Blog this'

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill (12th March 2014)

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill (12th March 2014): "The provisions have been in operation for five years and have resulted in prosecutions far in excess of the numbers predicted in 2008. From our own experiences of the current extreme pornography law (S63 (7 CJIA 2008), we know that some prosecutions have been deployed against sexual minorities and with scant regard to the particular provenance or contexts of the materials on the charge sheet (R v Holland; Webster; Walsh). While the provisions on bestiality may be transparent, the first two provisions are absolutely not" 'via Blog this'