JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE DRAFT DEFAMATION BILL Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill Oral and associated written evidence Volume II (HL Paper 203 & HC 930-II) Contents Lord Lester of Herne Hill ............................................................................................. 3 Written Evidence, Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC (EV 03) ............................................ 3 Supplementary written evidence, Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC (EV 46) .................. 12 Oral Evidence, 27 April 2011, Q 1—40 ..................................................................... 26 Libel Reform Campaign ............................................................................................ 48 Written Evidence, Libel Reform Campaign (EV 04) .................................................. 48 Written Evidence, Dr Evan Harris, Libel Reform Campaign (EV 05) ........................ 53 Supplementary written evidence, The Libel Reform Campaign (EV 13) ................... 60 Written Evidence, English PEN (EV 18) ................................................................... 78 Written Evidence, Index on Censorship (EV 48) ....................................................... 83 Supplementary written evidence, The Libel Reform Campaign (EV 45) ................... 92 Oral Evidence, 4 May 2011, Q 41–59 ....................................................................... 93 Professor Alastair Mullis and Dr Andrew Scott ....................................................... 106 Written Evidence, Professor Alastair Mullis and Dr Andrew Scott (EV 06) ............. 106 Oral Evidence, 4 May 2011, Q 60–89 ..................................................................... 116 Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, Finers Stephens Innocent, David Price Solicitors and Advocates and Media Law Assosciation ................................................................ 129 Oral Evidence, 9 May 2011, Q 90–121 ................................................................... 129 Carter-Ruck, Schillings Solicitors, Jones and Walker Solictors and Charles Russell LLP ......................................................................................................................... 145 Written Evidence, Schillings (EV 49) ...................................................................... 145 Written Evidence, The Media lawyers Association (EV 43) .................................... 150 Oral Evidence, 9 May 2011, Q 122–171 ................................................................. 155 The Guardian, Daily Telegraph and The Times ...................................................... 172 Oral Evidence, 11 May 2011, Q 172–244 ............................................................... 172 Liberty, Which?, Global Witness and Mumsnet ...................................................... 199 Written Evidence, Liberty (EV 37) ........................................................................... 199 Written Evidence, Which? (EV 08) ......................................................................... 210 Written Evidence, Global Witness (EV 29) ............................................................. 218 Memorandum submitted by Mumsnet (EV 09) ....................................................... 225 Oral Evidence, 18 May 2011, Q 245–296 ............................................................... 235 Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Wakeham ....................................................... 251 Oral Evidence, 18 May 2011, Q 297–325 ............................................................... 251 Internet Service Providers Association, Yahoo and Professor Ian Walden ............ 264 Written Evidence, The Internet Services Providers‘ Association (ISPA) (EV 56) .... 264 Written Evidence, Yahoo! UK & Ireland (EV 44) ..................................................... 271 Written Evidence, Professor Ian Walden (EV 64) ................................................... 274 Oral Evidence, 23 May 2011, Q 326–370 ............................................................... 278 The Publishers Association, The Booksellers Association and the National Union of Journalists .............................................................................................................. 293 Written Evidence, The Publishers Association (EV 38) .......................................... 293 Written Evidence, The Booksellers Association of the United Kingdom & Ireland Limited (EV 11) ....................................................................................................... 303 Written Evidence, National Union of Journalists (NUJ) (EV 19) .............................. 310 Oral Evidence, 23 May 2011, Q 371–397 ............................................................... 314 BBC and Tom Bower .............................................................................................. 324 Oral Evidence, 13 June 2011, Q 298–439 .............................................................. 324 Dr Ben Goldacre, Nature, British Medical Journal and Dr Simon Singh ................. 335 Written Evidence, Dr Ben Goldacre (EV 27) ........................................................... 335 Written Evidence, Nature (EV 42) ........................................................................... 338 Written Evidence, Dr Simon Singh (EV 24) ............................................................ 341 Supplementary written evidence, Dr Simon Singh (EV 52) .................................... 355 Supplementary written evidence, Dr Simon Singh (EV 53) .................................... 357 Oral Evidence, 13 June 2011, Q 440–469 .............................................................. 358 Kenneth Clarke MP, Lord McNally and Jeremy Hunt MP ....................................... 372 Written Evidence, Lord McNally (EV 47) ................................................................ 372 Written Evidence, Lord McNally (EV 50) ................................................................ 375 Oral Evidence, 15 June 2011, Q 470–254 .............................................................. 389 Baronesses Scotland of Asthal QC, Lord Falconer of Thoroton PC QC and Jack Straw MP ................................................................................................................ 411 Oral Evidence, 20 June 2011, Q 525–562 .............................................................. 411 Raymond Buildings, Matrix Chambers and Johnsons Solicitors ............................. 430 Written Evidence Paul Tweed, Senior Partner, Johnsons (EV 10) ......................... 430 Oral Evidence, 22 June 2011. Q 563–614 .............................................................. 434 Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury and Mr Justice Tugendhat ..................................... 460 Oral Evidence, 6 July 2011, Q 615–939 ................................................................. 460 Sir Charles Gray, Sir Stephen Sedley and Lord Woolf of Barnes ........................... 475 Oral Evidence, 6 July 2011, 640–667 ..................................................................... 475 Ian Hislop, Private Eye ........................................................................................... 487 Oral Evidence, 11 July 2011, Q 668–729 ............................................................... 487 Edward Garnier QC MP, Solicitor General ............................................................. 506 Oral Evidence Session, 18 July 2011, Q 730–748 ................................................. 506 Paul Dacre and Matthew Parris .............................................................................. 513 Oral Evidence, 18 July 2011, Q 749–800 ............................................................... 513 2 Lord Lester of Herne Hill Written Evidence, Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC (EV 03) THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT AND THE FAIR BALANCE BETWEEN FREE SPEECH AND PRIVACY PROTECTION INHERENT IN THE CONVENTION 1. Section 12 of the HRA was designed to ensure that British courts would pay particular regard to the Convention right to freedom of expression. Section 12 contains special provision stating that no relief is to be granted so as to restrain publication before trial unless the court is satisfied that the applicant is likely to establish that publication should not be allowed. 2. This reflects the position in defamation cases, and as stated by the Strasbourg Court in the Spycatcher case, namely, that ―the dangers inherent in prior restraints are such that they call for the most careful scrutiny on the part of the court. This is especially so as far as the press is concerned, for news is a perishable commodity and to delay its publication, even for a short period, may well deprive it of its value and interest‖: Observer and Guardian v United Kingdom (1991) 14 EHRR 153 at 191, para 60. 3. It is also well established by the Strasbourg Court that public figures can expect less protection under Article 10(2) than private persons, because of the importance of freedom of political debate in a democracy. 4. Where proceedings relate to journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material) Section 12 requires the court to have particular regard to the extent to which: a. the material has or is about to become available to the public, or would be in the public interest for the material to be published; and b. any relevant privacy code. 5. The House of Lords has called the public interest test the ―ultimate balancing exercise‖ requiring an ―intense