CyberLaw Blog

Archive for the ‘libel’ Category

Facebook libel leads to £10,000 payout: “The High Court has ordered a chef to pay £10,000 in libel damages for a Facebook posting in which he called a former friend a homosexual paedophile. Law student Raymond Bryce said he was neither.“

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

Blog libel suit thrown out because potential damage was so small: “A libel suit against a website has been thrown out of court because the potential damage to the reputation of the person making the claim was so small.“

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

Britain, Long a Libel Mecca, Reviews Laws: “England’s libel laws, which favor complainants, are under attack from publishers, scientists and others.”

(Via NYT > Freedom of Speech and Expression.)

Libel laws stifle jokes by Alexei Sayle and Ricky Gervais: Top comedians and wits, including Alexei Sayle, Ricky Gervais and Stephen Fry, say Britain is being turned into a ‘global laughing stock’ because of its draconian libel laws. They are the latest critics to call for reform of the legislation which is stifling free speech.

(Via Law News from Times Online.)

Newspaper thwarts libel claim with E-Commerce Regulations defence: “A newspaper publisher was not liable for user comments posted after an online article and will not have to pay out libel damages, the High Court has ruled.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

High Court: Online article with only four visits not libel: “

Claimants told where to go in no uncertain terms

A libel action over an article that appeared on the website of a South African magazine has been dismissed by a court in England. Evidence suggested that the article had received only four visits from the UK in a two month period.…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)

Libel law reform campaigners seek £10,000 damages cap: “English libel law imposes disproportionate restrictions on free speech, according to an independent report that recommends 10 changes to the laws. The Ministry of Justice said today that it will launch a consultation on defamation and the internet.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

High Court rejects libel case because article received approximately four visits: “A libel action over an article that appeared on the website of a South African magazine has been dismissed by a court in England. Evidence suggested that the article had received only four visits from the UK in a two month period.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

Hidden High Court Injuctions: “

The Twitter vs Trafigura case continues though it really is the Guardian newspaper and Wikileaks who have been driving this amazing story that illustrates the total lack of freedom of expression granted to the citizens of Britain.

For those who haven’t been following the case: The Guardian was attempting to report on Trafigura, a multi-national oil and commodity trader, but received legal threats from Carter-Ruck. This led to an injunction stopping them from publishing their findings. Yet not only were they prevented from publishing their article but the injunction also prevented them from reporting about the injunction!

These ’superinjunctions’ are an incredibly draconian power and in a strong democracy they would only be used as a last resort in the most limited of circumstances – and when used this would be public knowledge. However, it now transpires that not only are these injunctions granted by judges with seemingly not a second thought for open justice, but there is no record of the judge’s actions either.

The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Bridget Prentice said yesterday, in answer to a written Parliamentary question that the information is not currently available and the High Court has no intention to collate such data:

Paul Farrelly MP: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will (a) collect and (b) publish statistics on the number of non-reportable injunctions issued by the High Court in each of the last five years. [293012]

Bridget Prentice: The information requested is not available. The High Court collects figures on applications, however injunctions are not separately identifiable, and there are currently no plans to amend databases to do so.

I agree with wikileaks: ‘Time for UK journalists grow some balls and start violating censorship injunctions’

It is bad enough that superinjunctions exist at all, but it is absolutely appalling that there are not even records kept of how often they are used. Pressure needs to be put on the High Court to record these occasions, and make the details public as a matter of urgency.

“

(Via Your Right To Know.)

Minton report: Trafigura toxic dumping along the Ivory Coast broke EU regulations, 14 Sep 2006 – Wikileaks

From Wikileaks: Released September 13, 2009

Summary

Updated October 15, 2009: The ‘Minton report’ exposes a toxic waste dumping incident, which affected upto 108,000 people, according to a September 2009 United Nations report. The UK media has been suppressed from mention the report or its contents since a secret gag order was issued against the Guardian newspaper on September 11, 2009. The report was commissioned through Waterson & Hicks, a UK law firm, possibly to claim client-attorney privilege should it leak. The company concerned, Trafigura, is a giant multi-national oil and commodity trader. The Minton report assesses an incident involving Trafigura and the Ivory Coast town of Abidjan—possibly most culpable mass contamination incident since Bhopal.

The UK media is currently unable to mention the URL ‘http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Minton’ or anything else that would direct people towards the report.

An attempt by a member of parliament to subvert the gag order, by mentioning ‘Minton report’, the date of the secret gag, and ‘Trafigura’ in the House of Commons, lead to a major uproar on October 12 and 13, following an attempt by Trafigura to apply the gag order to parliamentary reporting (see this front page article in the Guardian newspaper).

The parliamentary quote concerned:

Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) – To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.[1]

The UK press gag remains in effect. Incredibly, Trafigura’s lawyers, Carter Ruck, are now attempting again to prevent parliamentary debate over the gag, this time by claiming sub-judice.

Readers can help the victims and the press undermine this unconscionable gag order, by spreading the URL ‘http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Minton’.