In today's Guardian, George Monbiot takes up the case of former diplomat Craig Murray, who is facing the threat of a libel action by private military contractor Tim Spicer.
Monbiot argues that Spicer's lawyers are threatening an injunction "against a book they haven't read and that won't be published until September," although Murray himself suggests elsewhere that they may have been tipped off by the Foreign Office.
Monbiot goes on to argue that the libel law that enables such actions is a national disgrace:
If someone launches a sustained and malicious campaign of false charges against another person, and that person is given no opportunity to demonstrate that he is being wronged, he should be allowed to seek redress. But the libel laws of England and Wales are tilted so heavily against the defendant and involve such monumental costs that they amount, in effect, to censorship by private interests: a sedition law for the exclusive use of millionaires. While in the United States the plaintiff must prove that the claims against him are false, in English law the defendants' claims are presumed false until proven otherwise: he has to demonstrate his innocence. If his defence fails, he must pay both costs and damages. The plaintiff's lawyers make little attempt to limit their costs: the partners at one well-known firm charge £750 an hour. The bill can rise to millions.
Is this just special pleading by journalists, or is there a real case for reform?
Comments
There is no cause to worry at all, the "defendant" simply tells the agressive libel lawyer to Fuck Off.
How can they sustain any case without publication? No jury would even be arraigned , never mind listen.
This was a celebrated defence by Private Eye, many , many years ago and constituted the total body of a letter to the lawyers involved.
This doesn't mean that there aren't some very peevish people in the FCO who would like to cause Craig Murray as much personal damage as they can.
Post new comment