England and Welsh libel and stuff

Jeff Jones said:

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, just a hack :-) And I've moved to a
country where it's harder to do investigative journalism than it is in
many other parts of the world, because it's so much easier to get sued.
So this information is provided in the public interest, and that
includes the right-minded readers of this esteemed newsgroup.

Those of you with at least a passing interest in the Armstrong vs. The
Times case that is AFAIK still in progress may be interested to know
that libel laws in the England and Wales are gradually being relaxed in
favour of freedom of speech (or more specifically, freedom of the
press). It's not a UK-wide thing, because in Scotland they are already
a long way in that direction, perhaps even more so than the US.

As I said, England and Wales are much easier places to sue for libel
compared to the USA because the claimants don't have to prove tricky
stuff like malice and reckless regard for the truth. I think last year
there were 12 libel cases in the whole of the USA, seven of which went
in favour of the defendant. In the UK, there were 200 cases, and it's a
significantly smaller country. It's a little counter-intuitive, because
a lot of people have the impression that the US is one of the most
litigious places in the world. Disclaimer: not that that's a bad thing
:-)

Britain has (I believe) three courts dealing with common law: High
Court, Court of Appeal, and House of Lords, the latter being the
highest. Britain also adopted a human rights act in 1998, which allows
for freedom of speech, but it's a qualified one. It doesn't give you
the same freedoms as the USA's First Amendment, for example. But it
does at least provide for it.

In 1999, The Times successfully defended, using "qualified privelege",
a libel suit against Albert Reynolds, who was the former Irish
Taoisach. It went all the way to the House of Lords, who ruled in The
Times' favour. It was seen as a significant landmark in favour of
journalists and publishers who were publishing stuff "in the public
interest", as long as it was done responsibly. Ref:
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1999/45.html.

Since then, quite a few defendants have tried using the qualified
privelege defence, with mixed results (George Galloway won in the high
court against The Telegraph, which used qualified privelege, in 2004).
The Times used this in its defence against Armstrong, and it was first
thrown out by the high court, but then allowed by the court of appeal
(ref: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=2005/jul05/jul30news). That
gives The Times a stronger case.

In October 2006 (see:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1920159,00.html), "Five law
lords unanimously overturned high court and appeal court libel
judgments against the Wall Street Journal Europe in December 2003 and
quashed damages awards totalling £40,000 to a Saudi billionaire
businessman, Mohammed Jameel, and his companies over an article which
said the Saudi Arabian authorities were monitoring the bank accounts of
prominent Saudis for evidence of supporting terrorism.

"The judges ruled that the lower courts had been interpreting an
earlier protective ruling in a case brought by the former Irish
taoiseach Albert Reynolds too restrictively and set out the principles
that should apply in future libel cases.

"They held that where the topic of a media investigation was of public
importance, relevant allegations that could not subsequently be proved
true should not attract libel damages if they had been published
responsibly."

Jameel was partially vindicated, because although he didn't win his
libel case, he did show that the WSJ published stuff that was untrue.
So you can publish false, libellious statements, as long as you do so
responsibly and in the public interest.

Bear in mind that this ruling was only made recently. British book
publishers have been, shall we say, reluctant to publish the
Walsh/Ballester book in the UK (maybe a Scottish publisher would stick
its neck out). But I'm not sure whether that this ruling will change
that reluctance, despite the above.

*Point of (slight) interest: the high court judge who tossed out the
defence of "qualified privelege" in the Reynolds/Times,
Galloway/Telegraph and Armstrong/Times cases was the same on each
occasion: Justice David Eady.

I'm not going into the SCA vs Armstrong case in the USA, because that
wasn't a libel case. Also, Armstrong was the defendant, not the
claimant.

Now I wish to adjourn to the bar.

Jeff

Thanks for this. Good to be reminded how different legal standards and
thresholds for proof can vary even in the west.

Steve

Jeff Jones wrote:

<stuff>

Argh, spotted two typos: should be privilege + libellous

Jeff Jones said:

Those of you with at least a passing interest in the Armstrong vs. The
Times case that is AFAIK still in progress may be interested to know

Double argh!! Now, had I been paying attention while covering the Tour
last year, I would have remembered this:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/jul06/jul01news
(scroll to the bottom). The Armstrong v The Times case was settled out
of court before it went any further. So it seems that The Times'
"qualified privilege" defence wasn't considered strong enough to
override "justification", and there was no way that The Times was
going to try to defend on those grounds because they couldn't prove
that Lance Armstrong took drugs.

So the rest of what I wrote can be ignored until a similar case arises,
and I will retire to the bar for the foreseeable Future.

Jeff, non-lawyer and hack-at-large

"Jeff Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jeff Jones wrote:

.... I will retire to the bar for the foreseeable Future.

Quoted message said:

Jeff, non-lawyer and hack-at-large

May I join you there ? What is on tap ?

Steve said:

"Jeff Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jeff Jones wrote:

... I will retire to the bar for the foreseeable Future.

Quoted message said:

Jeff, non-lawyer and hack-at-large

May I join you there ? What is on tap ?

Sure you can. I'll interpret 'What's on tap?' to mean what's actually
drinkable. My response is anything except English beer, which is [censored]
for all values of dishwater. This is my opinion and I'm prepared to
defend it on the basis of "fair comment", even though a right-minded
jury could conceivably be convinced on the grounds of "justification"
on the balance of evidence.

My legal team advises me to settle for several pints of Staropramen
and/or Leffe in proper glasses, plus costs.

Jeff

Jeff Jones said:

Sure you can. I'll interpret 'What's on tap?' to mean what's actually
drinkable. My response is anything except English beer, which is [censored]
for all values of dishwater. This is my opinion and I'm prepared to
defend it on the basis of "fair comment", even though a right-minded
jury could conceivably be convinced on the grounds of "justification"
on the balance of evidence.

Is OK, the English say the same about Australian beer.

Stu Fleming said:

Jeff Jones said:

Sure you can. I'll interpret 'What's on tap?' to mean what's actually
drinkable. My response is anything except English beer, which is [censored]
for all values of dishwater. This is my opinion and I'm prepared to
defend it on the basis of "fair comment", even though a right-minded
jury could conceivably be convinced on the grounds of "justification"
on the balance of evidence.

Is OK, the English say the same about Australian beer.

I am in accord with that too.

Jeff Jones said:

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, just a hack :-) And I've moved to a
country where it's harder to do investigative journalism than it is in
many other parts of the world, because it's so much easier to get sued.
So this information is provided in the public interest, and that
includes the right-minded readers of this esteemed newsgroup.

Those of you with at least a passing interest in the Armstrong vs. The
Times case that is AFAIK still in progress may be interested to know
that libel laws in the England and Wales are gradually being relaxed in
favour of freedom of speech (or more specifically, freedom of the
press). It's not a UK-wide thing, because in Scotland they are already
a long way in that direction, perhaps even more so than the US.

As I said, England and Wales are much easier places to sue for libel
compared to the USA because the claimants don't have to prove tricky
stuff like malice and reckless regard for the truth. I think last year
there were 12 libel cases in the whole of the USA, seven of which went
in favour of the defendant. In the UK, there were 200 cases, and it's a
significantly smaller country. It's a little counter-intuitive, because
a lot of people have the impression that the US is one of the most
litigious places in the world. Disclaimer: not that that's a bad thing
:-)

Britain has (I believe) three courts dealing with common law: High
Court, Court of Appeal, and House of Lords, the latter being the
highest. Britain also adopted a human rights act in 1998, which allows
for freedom of speech, but it's a qualified one. It doesn't give you
the same freedoms as the USA's First Amendment, for example. But it
does at least provide for it.

In 1999, The Times successfully defended, using "qualified privelege",
a libel suit against Albert Reynolds, who was the former Irish
Taoisach. It went all the way to the House of Lords, who ruled in The
Times' favour. It was seen as a significant landmark in favour of
journalists and publishers who were publishing stuff "in the public
interest", as long as it was done responsibly. Ref:
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1999/45.html.

Since then, quite a few defendants have tried using the qualified
privelege defence, with mixed results (George Galloway won in the high
court against The Telegraph, which used qualified privelege, in 2004).
The Times used this in its defence against Armstrong, and it was first
thrown out by the high court, but then allowed by the court of appeal
(ref: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id=2005/jul05/jul30news). That
gives The Times a stronger case.

In October 2006 (see:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1920159,00.html), "Five law
lords unanimously overturned high court and appeal court libel
judgments against the Wall Street Journal Europe in December 2003 and
quashed damages awards totalling £40,000 to a Saudi billionaire
businessman, Mohammed Jameel, and his companies over an article which
said the Saudi Arabian authorities were monitoring the bank accounts of
prominent Saudis for evidence of supporting terrorism.

"The judges ruled that the lower courts had been interpreting an
earlier protective ruling in a case brought by the former Irish
taoiseach Albert Reynolds too restrictively and set out the principles
that should apply in future libel cases.

"They held that where the topic of a media investigation was of public
importance, relevant allegations that could not subsequently be proved
true should not attract libel damages if they had been published
responsibly."

Jameel was partially vindicated, because although he didn't win his
libel case, he did show that the WSJ published stuff that was untrue.
So you can publish false, libellious statements, as long as you do so
responsibly and in the public interest.

Bear in mind that this ruling was only made recently. British book
publishers have been, shall we say, reluctant to publish the
Walsh/Ballester book in the UK (maybe a Scottish publisher would stick
its neck out). But I'm not sure whether that this ruling will change
that reluctance, despite the above.

*Point of (slight) interest: the high court judge who tossed out the
defence of "qualified privelege" in the Reynolds/Times,
Galloway/Telegraph and Armstrong/Times cases was the same on each
occasion: Justice David Eady.

I'm not going into the SCA vs Armstrong case in the USA, because that
wasn't a libel case. Also, Armstrong was the defendant, not the
claimant.

Now I wish to adjourn to the bar.

Jeff

Armstrong was the plaintiff in the Armstrong v. SCA arbitration case,
not the defendant.

I don't see how LA Confidentail is libelous to Lance. It simply
contains statements and observations by others. How is that libelous?

Give me one example of a libelous statement in the book. One.

Magilla

"Jeff Jones" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de news:
[email hidden]...
| Steve wrote:
| > "Jeff Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
| > news:[email hidden]...
| > >
| > > Jeff Jones wrote:
| > >
| > ... I will retire to the bar for the foreseeable Future.
| > >
| > > Jeff, non-lawyer and hack-at-large
| > >
| > May I join you there ? What is on tap ?
|
| Sure you can. I'll interpret 'What's on tap?' to mean what's actually
| drinkable. My response is anything except English beer, which is [censored]
| for all values of dishwater. This is my opinion and I'm prepared to
| defend it on the basis of "fair comment", even though a right-minded
| jury could conceivably be convinced on the grounds of "justification"
| on the balance of evidence.
|
| My legal team advises me to settle for several pints of Staropramen
| and/or Leffe in proper glasses, plus costs.
|
| Jeff
|

English beer [censored]? I think you'd do better using the insanity defense.

MagillaGorilla said:

Armstrong was the plaintiff in the Armstrong v. SCA arbitration case,
not the defendant.

Yes he was, and if I'd thought about it, it would have been obvious.
Rule number one: never assume your own memory is accurate.

Quoted message said:

I don't see how LA Confidentail is libelous to Lance. It simply
contains statements and observations by others. How is that libelous?

It would depend on what those statements were, and more importantly,
how the author strings them together. But the authors/publishers of LA
Confidentiel haven't been sued over the book, so that is a moot point
(see below).

Quoted message said:

Give me one example of a libelous statement in the book. One.

That wasn't what the case against The Sunday Times was about. It was
about an article written by Alan English that drew on excerpts from the
book. Armstrong and co. thought that the overall tone of the article
would lead a reader to think that he took drugs to win five Tours de
France (he hadn't won seven by then). Thus, his reputation in England
and Wales had been defamed.

In his first ruling in January 2005, the high court judge ruled that
the article was libellous. From
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/jan05/jan10news :
"Justice Eady cited a passage from the Times article, written by Alan
English, that says, "'Armstrong is no ordinary cyclist, but there are
those who fear that a man who won five Tours de France in a row must
have succumbed to the pressures of taking drugs.' The formula 'those
who fear that' is not an effective device to avoid libel."

Eady found that this and other paragraphs in the Sunday Times article
were, "In my judgment, sufficiently powerful to colour the whole
article. In the face of these (passages), it seems to me that it would
indeed be perverse to conclude that the article meant no more than
there were some questions needing to be investigated. The defamatory
sting about Mr. Armstrong obviously goes well beyond that."

Eady continued, saying that, "The overall effect of the quotations and
the events described in the article is to leave readers with the
impression that Mr. Armstrong's denials of drug taking beggar belief
and are to be taken with a pinch of salt."
---
It's the overall effect of the article in the mind of a right-minded
reader that's important, not any particular statement.

Although The Sunday Times successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal
that they could use the qualified privilege defence, the case didn't go
much further than that. The two parties settled for what I understand
was a substantial sum in mid-2006.

Jeff

"Jeff Jones" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Stu Fleming said:

Jeff Jones said:

Sure you can. I'll interpret 'What's on tap?' to mean what's
actually
drinkable. My response is anything except English beer, which is
[censored]
for all values of dishwater. This is my opinion and I'm prepared to
defend it on the basis of "fair comment", even though a
right-minded
jury could conceivably be convinced on the grounds of
"justification"
on the balance of evidence.

Is OK, the English say the same about Australian beer.

I am in accord with that too.

How about Welsh beer? Bullmastif for example.

Phil H