Summary of repetition rule: McAlpine v Bercow [2013] EWHC 1342 (QB) (24 May 2013)

McAlpine v Bercow [2013] EWHC 1342 (QB) (24 May 2013): "The effect of the repetition rule is that the Defendant, as the writer of the Tweet, is treated as if she had made, with the addition of the Claimant's name, the allegation in the Newsnight and other media reports which had previously been made without his name. It is an allegation of guilt. I see no room on these facts for any less serious meaning. The fact that the accused's denial was also reported in media (other than Newsnight) may be one of a number of factors that the Defendant can rely on in mitigation of damage, but it does not reduce the seriousness of the allegation.
If the Defendant wished to avail herself of a public interest defence, such as Reynolds privilege or reportage, she would have had to plead it. She has not done so. Given the well known risk that a victim of a real crime may make a mistaken identification of the criminal, I do not find it surprising that she has not pleaded any defence of that kind." 'via Blog this'

Restraint of republication: Tesla Motors Ltd v BBC [2013] EWCA Civ 152 (05 March 2013)

Tesla Motors Ltd & Anor v British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) [2013] EWCA Civ 152 (05 March 2013): "I do not think that Tesla has sufficient prospect of recovering a substantial sum by way of damages to justify continuing the proceedings to trial. Nor do I think that this is a case in which the court would be at all likely to grant an injunction to prevent further publication of the film. Production of the Roadster was due to cease in 2012 in any event and it must be very doubtful whether by the time the case came to trial any purpose would be served by restraining the BBC from continuing to show it. In my view this provides an important ground of distinction between the present case and that of Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] UKHL 40, [2002] 1 W.L.R. 3024, to which Mr. Spearman drew our attention. It follows that I am not persuaded that the case which Tesla seeks to make by the proposed amendment has any real prospect of success, or, if successful, is likely to yield any benefit to Tesla that can justify the devotion of the substantial resources in terms of costs and the use of court time that its determination would require. I am therefore satisfied that the judge was right to refuse permission for the amendment." 'via Blog this'

Sally Bercow pleads innocence over Lord McAlpine Twitter storm

Sally Bercow pleads innocence over Lord McAlpine Twitter storm | Politics | The Guardian: "In February, the peer, who has received £310,000 from the BBC and ITV over the allegations, announced that he was dropping defamation claims against Twitter users with fewer than 500 followers, saying he wished to "draw this unfortunate episode forced into my life to a close". But he vowed to continue to fight Bercow.
At a hearing relating to this case this year, it emerged that the Tory peer had rejected an offer to settle the dispute in November. McCormick told Tugendhat at the time that she had offered to settle the claim but did not reveal the details. In return, McAlpine's barrister pointed out that he too had offered three times to settle the claim and prevent it going to court, but each one was rejected.
Arguing that Bercow's tweet could not be seen as anything other than an innocent question about McAlpine trending, her lawyer told the court that the furore over Newsnight did not blow up until a day later when ITV presenter Phillip Schofield handed David Cameron a list of Tory names on air, including that of McAlpine, that he had found on the internet that were allegedly linked to sexual abuse." 'via Blog this'

Bahrain sentences Twitter users to prison

Bahrain sentences Twitter users to prison - Middle East - Al Jazeera English: "A Bahraini court has sentenced six Twitter users to one year in prison for allegedly insulting King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, according to the public prosecutor's office. The six were charged by the lower criminal court with "misusing the right of free expression," the government statement, which was posted online, said on Wednesday. The six Twitter users were accused of writing remarks "undermining the values and traditions of Bahrain's society towards the king on Twitter", according to the statement, which did not identify the people who were accused." 'via Blog this'

Time to Abolish the BBC? Leveson missed media diversity

Craig Murray » Blog Archive » Time to Abolish the BBC: "The Leveson Inquiry was a brilliant sleight of hand which managed to get liberals arguing for more government control of the media, while the real problem – the need for a radical breaking up of media ownership – was ignored. If we fracture the Murdoch empire and break up the BBC, with radically tough regulations restricting the percentage of the market any owner can have, we have a real chance to have a diverse media and broader political debate." 'via Blog this'

Web access could be a human right: Cabinet Office Minister

Web access could be a human right - Telegraph: "Countries including France, Spain, Finland and Estonia have already enshrined online access in law, and Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the world wide web, has called for global measures because the web preserves freedom.
Mr Maude said that he would take Sir Tim’s suggestion “under advisement”, and called the suggestion “a really interesting idea”. The statement is the first time a member of the Government has offered to think about guaranteeing web access for all in the UK." 'via Blog this'

ECtHR Dismisses Animal Defenders “Political Advertising” Art.10 application | Inforrm's Blog

News: Court of Human Rights Dismisses Animal Defenders “Political Advertising” Article 10 application | Inforrm's Blog: "Judgment ([2013] ECHR 362) was handed down by the Grand Chamber this morning, more than a year after the original hearing. The majority attached considerable weight to the fact that the ban had been upheld by parliamentary and judicial bodies and their decision that it was “necessary to prevent the distortion of crucial public interest debates” [116]  The Court also thought that it was important that the prohibition was specifically circumscribed to address the risk of distortion [117].  It noted that there was not European consensus as to how to regulate paid political advertising and this suggested that a wide margin appreciation should be allowed [123].  Finally, it noted that other media were open to the applicant [124].
The UK judge, Sir Nicholas Bratza, delivered a concurring opinion which he noted that the role of the Strasbourg Court was not to carry out its own balancing test.
The dissenting judges noted that the case was almost identical to previous cases before the Court where the outcome had been a finding of violation." 'via Blog this'