IBC Legal Presents the 21st Annual
Defamation & Privacy 2014  

• 20th May 2014, London
• For full details and to register visit: http://www.ibclegal.com/FKW82452MJLB
• Agenda here: http://www.ibclegal.com/FKW82452MJLB

Speakers include:

• Andrew Caldecott QC, Head of Chambers, One Brick Court
• Heather Rogers QC, Doughty Street
• Hugh Tomlinson QC, Matrix Chambers
• Antony White QC, Matrix Chambers

• IPSO Representative TBC
• Michael McManus, Executive Director (Transition), PCC
• Pia Sarma, Editorial Legal Director, Times Newspapers Limited
• Adam Cannon, Editorial Legal Director, Telegraph Media Group
• Gill Phillips, Director of Editorial Legal Services, Guardian News & Media Limited
• Prash Narik, General Counsel, Channel 4
• John Battle, Head of Compliance, ITN
• Dr Martin Moore, Director, The Media Standards Agency
• Dr Evan Harris, Associate Director, Hacked Off
• Valierie Nazereth, Head Editorial Legal Group, BBC
• Jonathan Heawood, Director, IMPRESS]

• Mark Lewis, Partner, Taylor Hampton Solicitors
• William Bennett, 5RB
• Rupert Earle, Partner, Bates Wells Braithwaite
• Mark Scodie, Associate, Bates Wells Braithwaite
• Ellen Peart, Partner, BCL Burton Copeland
• Louis Charalambous, Partner, Simons Muirhead Burton

All registrations received by Friday 21st February save £200.

Register at:

• Online: visit http://www.ibclegal.com/FKW82452MJLB
• Call IBC on +44 (0)20 7017 5503
• Email professionalcustserv@informa.com

VIP Code: FKW82452MJLB for 10% discount

In response, the Inforrm blog has asked:

Does the Act “reverse the chilling effect on freedom of expression of current libel law” or is it damp squib which will make defamation cases more complex?

It’s a big question. It might be more realistic to hope the unwarranted deterrence of legitimate expression is reduced. The answer would need to be informed by a good deal more data than is currently available, to compare defamation related activity pre and post reform. The court records only provide very limited information about the way in which publishing activity is detrimentally affected by defamation costs and procedure.

To understand perceived chilling effects (most invidious when protected expression is deterred for fear of legal sanction and associated costs – see Schauer 1978, PDF) it is necessary to look at claims that are discontinued or settled before a hearing, complaints that are settled before ever reaching court and beyond that threats of legal action that never materialise (see Barendt et al 1997).

Further still, there is the anticipated fear of legal action and costs based on past experience, or the experience of others. Additionally, behavioural change as a result of the new Act and associated procedure might not be immediately obvious (if claims involving causes of action accrued prior to commencement of the Act can still be brought under the old law till late 2014).

It would be beneficial to researchers and policymakers if more anonymised data were made available (by the judiciary/MoJ, media companies and defamation specialist firms) about claims, complaints settled before they reach court, and abandoned threats [more on this here].

It’s encouraging to see the Master of the Rolls emphasise the importance of Alternative Dispute Resolution [PDF]. I’ve heard it suggested that claimants are often far more concerned about an apology and correction than damages (though costs add up fast once litigation is underway); if so, it would make sense to find alternative avenues for resolving disputes more quickly and cheaply.

This would both help protect publishers from illegitimate threats, as well as providing suitable redress for legitimate claimants. Resolving complaints in fair and effective ways through affordable and sensibly designed alternative routes does not necessarily have to prevent access to justice – for both defendants and claimants.

Just days before the Privy Council is due to sign off the Royal Charter on press regulation, the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) together with the Media Reform Coalition are holding a one-day conference in Goldsmiths, University of London, to look at various aspects of how the law relates to the internet.

Donnacha DeLong, who was President of the NUJ during the Leveson Inquiry; Victoria McEvedy of the Open Rights Group, who campaigned to clarify the impact of the Crime and Courts Bill on websites; and Jake Rowbottom of the Oxford University Faculty of Law will discuss the Royal Charter and how it relates to the internet in the final session, chaired by Angela Philips, senior journalism lecturer at Goldsmiths, University of London, and member of the Media Reform Coalition.

The first session of the day will look at the issue of libel, what changed in the recent reforms of libel law and what issues remain controversial. David Osler, a journalist who was accused of libel in 2010 in a case that was thrown out of court, and Dave Morris, one of the defendants in the infamous McLibel case, will be joined by Mark Scodie, a solicitor with Bates Wells & Braithwaite London LLP). Judith Townend, a freelance journalist and researcher who runs the Meeja Law website (https://meejalaw.com/) will chair the session.

There will also be a session on the law surrounding abuse and threats online, looking at some of the recent revelations of vicious abuse and threats against many users of Twitter and other social media, women in particular. Jennifer Perry, an expert on digital stalking, and former Met Police officer Hamish Brown MBE will discuss the issue in a session chaired by Professor Yuri Obata, visiting International Researcher at Goldsmiths.

Tickets for the event are £30 for a standard ticket, £10 for unemployed people and OAPS and free for members of the NUJ and students and staff at Goldsmiths, University of London.

They can be booked online at https://nujinternet.eventbrite.co.uk/

Address:

New Academic Building, Goldsmiths University of London, London SE14 6NW (nearest tube/rail stations: New Cross and New Cross Gate).

Full timings:

• Opens (with refreshments): 10:00
• Libel (10.30-12.00) – chaired by Judith Townend (Meeja Law)
• Online abuse and threats (13:00-14:30) – chaired by Professor Yuri Obata (Visiting International Researcher at Goldsmiths)
• Regulation (15:00-16:30) – chaired by Angela Philips (Media Reform Coalition)
• Followed by a networking session with refreshments.
• Close: 19:00 

When: Saturday 26 October 2013, 10:00 – 19:00

Tuesday 3rd September

A1: 14.00-15.30 (Special session on conference theme)

Ewa Komorek (Trinity College Dublin):
The problem which will not go away. Recent developments in the EU approach to media pluralism issue

Dimitrios Doukas (Belfast):
The Sky is not the (Only) Limit – Sports Broadcasting without Frontiers and the European Court of Justice

A2: 16.00-17.30

Alan Durant (Middlesex):
The DPP’s Interim guidelines (December 2012) on prosecuting communications via social media

Damien McCallig (Galway):
Intrusion into private grief: regulating the reporting and presentation of deceased persons in the modern media

Paul Bernal (East Anglia):
Defamation on Twitter: a defence of ‘responsible tweeting’

Wednesday 4th September

A3: 9-10.30

Yik Chan Chin (Hong Kong Baptist) & Yanbin Lu (Nottingham):
Defenses of Freedom of Expression in Chinese Right to Reputation Lawsuits

Päivi Tiilikka (Helsinki):
Margin of appreciation and balancing-criteria in the practise of the ECtHR when balancing the freedom of expression and right to private life – is there any consistency?

Jason Bosland (Melbourne)
Defamation, Statutory Reform and the Protection of Opinion in Australia and the United Kingdom

A4: 14.00-15.30 (Leveson Inquiry session, chaired by Tom Gibbons, Manchester)

Paul Wragg (Leeds):
Freedom of the Press after Leveson

Judith Townend (City):
An uncertain climate: Defamation, privacy and the resolution of disputes outside the courtroom

Karen Mc Cullagh (East Anglia):
Regulation of Investigative Journalism post Leveson

via Preview: media & communications at SLS 2013 at Lex Ferenda.

Upcoming conference, 17th September 2013, Millennium Knightsbridge Hotel, London, UK

The ultimate review of key developments in the field of media law, featuring analysis of the impact of recent cases, such as: Leveson, Axel Springer/ Von Hannover (No.2) and Spelman v Express Newspapers.

Attendees will also benefit from discussion of the latest crucial issues, including:

• Contempt and reporting restrictions
• The post-Leveson landscape
• The defamation bill
• Privacy

For the agenda and to register go to:

http://www.ibclegal.com/FKW82385MJL

Quote VIP code FKW82385MJL and save 10%

The author of People Power, Dan Jellinek, is a journalist and co-founder of Headstar, a publisher specialising in technology and social issues (I met Dan when we briefly shared the same office space in Brighton and spoke to him about various media law related issues when he was writing the book).

Here’s the information, from the publisher’s site:

As protestors around the world risk their lives in pursuit of democracy, in the UK the word has never seemed so tarnished. Surveys regularly show our politicians are not liked, not trusted and not wanted. Voter turnout is shockingly low, and episodes such as the MPs’ expenses scandal serve to confirm the opinion that public officials are all as bad as each other.

So what is the answer?

Giving us unprecedented access to the corridors of power, Dan Jellinek provides a unique and accessible guide to democracy in Britain, explaining how its elements work – from national and local government to free speech, the internet and the rule of law – and the role that we, the public, need to play to keep the wheels turning.

If you want to know how your small actions can bring about big changes, how you can improve your lot and the lives of others, then you must read this book. Stand up and be counted. The power is in your hands.

It’s available to pre-order for 4 July here (ebook and hardback); details on the publisher’s site here.

The Guardian is attempting to overturn the Attorney General’s veto of the publication of Prince Charles’ correspondence with seven Government departments. An application for judicial review was heard over two days last week by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, with Lord Justice Davis and Mr Justice Globe.

Full Law and Media Round Up – 13 May 2013 at Inforrm’s Blog.

A system of arbitration is at the heart of Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations, and different versions are included in the the government’s draft Royal Charter and the industry’s own proposals [PDF].

The suggestion is that an arbitration service could deal with libel and privacy complaints that would otherwise go to court.

Last minute amendments to the Crime and Courts bill (now Act) would allow for bloggers to opt into the regulatory arbitration system and receive costs benefits.

Additionally and separately, recommendations have also been made for Mediation and Early Resolution in defamation disputes.

However, there is very little solid data about the nature and quantity of legal claims made against the media, including small bloggers. Because the majority of libel claims, for example, are believed to be resolved out of court, there is no complete record of disputes.

In short, little is known about bloggers’ and journalists’ actual legal experiences and opinions.

In an effort to build a better picture and to help inform the development of new alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, I am launching a survey as the final part of my doctoral project at the Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism (CLJJ), City University London.

This questionnaire is open to all types of journalists and online writers who expect their readership to be predominantly based in England and/or Wales.

Please take part and share your experiences and encourage your colleagues and friends to participate as well.

All data will be collected anonymously with no identification of organisations or individuals.

The questionnaire can be found here:

• https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/medialawsurvey

Many thanks for your help! If you have any questions you can email me (judith.townend.1@city.ac.uk) or tweet me (@jtownend).

About the project

This survey is part of Judith Townend’s doctoral project at the Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism (CLJJ), City University London. The research project, which has been given ethical approval by the CLJJ, explores how journalists and online writers are affected by libel and privacy law, as well as other social and legal factors. It will draw attention to the issues faced by online writers and journalists, and help inform the development of resources in this area.

About this questionnaire

• The questionnaire is open to all types of journalists and online writers who expect their readership to be predominantly based in England and/or Wales.
• It should take between 10 and 30 minutes to complete, depending on your experiences and views. Some questions require an answer so you can be taken to the next relevant question.
• All data will be collected anonymously with no identification of organisations or individuals.
• The information you have submitted will included in a final report to be published in 2013/14, which may be used for future online and print publications.
• Please contact Judith Townend with any questions, or to obtain the final results.

Contact details:

Judith Townend, c/o Peter Aggar, Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism, City University London, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, Tel: +44 (0)20 7040 8167

E-mail: judith.townend.1@city.ac.uk

via Law and Media Round Up – 6 May 2013 | Inforrm’s Blog.