- Prime Minister, 'Letter to Cabinet Ministers on Transparency and Open Data' (7 July 2011), www.number10.gov.uk/news/letter-to-cabinet-ministers-on-transparency-and-open-data.
- 'Making Open Data Real: A Public Consultation' (4 August 2011), www.cabinetoffce.gov.uk/resource-library/making-open-data-real-public-consultation.
- Ministry of Justice, 'Open Data Strategy 2012–15' (28 June 2012), www.gov.uk/government/publications/open-data-strategy-2012–15.
- R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER 233.
- Will Moy, who worked for the independent member, Lord Low of Dalston. Details at http://fullfact.org/about/team.
- Available at www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Fourth-Submission-by-Full-Fact.pdf.
- A Sippitt, 'Did a Group of Muslim Women Escape Jail for Attack Because They Were “Not Used to Alcohol”?' (8 December 2011).
- See, for example, D Price QC, K Duodu and N Cain, Defamation Law: Procedure & Practice (Sweet & Maxwell, 4th edn 2010), which sets out a schedule of defamation trials since 1990, with the name of the case, the date of the trial, the outcome and brief details.
- Impact Assessment (IA No: MOJ 145, Ministry of Justice, 1 April 2012) para 2.230, 51, www.parliament.uk/documents/impact-assessments/IA12–009.pdf.
- E Barendt, L Lustgarten, K Norrie and H Stephenson, Libel and the Media: The Chilling Effect (Oxford University Press, 1997) 41.
- See 'An Inquiry into the Culture, Practices and Ethics of the Press Report' (Leveson Inquiry) (November 2012), vol 4, pt K, ch 7, 1768.
- For 2011, this was: £15,000–£50,000, 28; Over £50,000, 61; Unspecifed, 76; Total, 165. Ministry of Justice, 'Judicial and Court Statistics (Annual)', www.gov.uk/government/publications/judicial-and-court-statistics-annual.
- Contained in 'Judicial Statistics 2011: Number of Defamation Claims Remains Low', Inforrm's Blog (7 July 2012), http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2012/07/15/judicial-statistics-2011-number-of-defamation-claims-remains-low.
- 'Defamation Trials, Summary Determinations and Assessments in 2011', Inforrm's Blog (11 January 2012), http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/defamation-trials-summary-determinations-and-assessments-in-2011.
- Impact Assessment (MOJ 145, 2012).
- Ibid, para 2.2, p 24.
- Ibid, paras 2.17–2.23, p 27.
- Ibid, para 2.56, p 32.
- Ibid.
- Ibid, para 2.58, p 32.
- Ibid, para 2.230, p 51.
- Inforrm's Blog (n 14).
- Cooper v Evening Standard and Associated Newspapers (2012) (not yet reported).
- Lord Lester, Oral Evidence to Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill, Oral and Associated Written Evidence, Volume II (HL Paper 203 & HC 930-II, 27 April 2011), Qs 1–40, 41.
- Impact Assessment (MOJ 145, 2012) para 2.14, p 26.
- Ibid, para 2.15, p 26.
- House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Press Standards, Privacy and Libel, Second Report of Session 2009–10 (24 February 2010), para 207.
- Ibid, para 208.
- Ministry of Justice, Report of the Libel Working Group (23 March 2010), Annex B, 45.
- Ibid, Annex C, 52.
- Lord Justice Jackson, Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report (TSO, December 2009) para 6.2, p 328.
- Impact Assessment (MOJ 145, 2012), para 2.231, p 51.
- Report of the Libel Working Group (n 29) 85.
- See criticisms raised on Inforrm's blog, for example: 'Misreporting Defamation Research: No “Drop in Cases” and No Leveson Effect' (4 September 2012), http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/misreporting-defamation-research-no-drop-in-cases-and-no-leveson-effect.
- HC Deb, 12 June 2012, col 202; HC Deb, 12 September 2012, col 371.
- U Smartt, Media and Entertainment Law (Routledge, 2011).
- 'Libel Challenges by Actors and Sport Stars Treble in Year' (3 September 2010), www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7978156/Libel-challenges-by-actors-and-sport-stars-treble-in-year.html.
- Home Offce, Crimes Detected in England and Wales 2010/11, www.gov.uk/government/publications/crimes-detected-in-england-and-wales-2010-to-2011; 2011/12, www.gov.uk/government/publications/crimes-detected-in-england-and-wales-2011-to-2012.
- Home Offce, Counting Rules (30 March 2012), section 99, www.homeoffce.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/counting-rules/count-other?view=Binary (no longer available).
- Email communication with author.
- Master of the Rolls, ‘Committee Reports Findings on “Super-Injunctions”’, press release (20 May 2011), www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/media-releases/2011/committee-reports-fndings-super-injunctions-20052011.
- See J Townend, ‘Lord Neuberger's Report Cuts through the Superinjunction Hysteria' (20 May 2011), www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/may/20/lord-neuberger-report-superinjunction-hysteria.
- According to the report, '[t]he term super-injunction is frequently used incorrectly to refer to an anony-mised injunction'. Master of the Rolls, Report of the Committee on Super-Injunctions: Super-Injunctions, Anonymised Injunctions and Open Justice (20 May 2011), para 2.15, p 20.
- Ibid, para 4.4, p 54.
- Press conference held by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales and the Master of the Rolls (20 May 2011), transcript available at46 Report of the Committee on Super-Injunctions (20 May 2011), para 4.2, p 53.
- Ibid, vi.
- Ibid, vi–vii. According to the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions, '[d]iscussions are under way about creating such a system': Session 2010–12 Report (HL Paper 273 HC 1443, TSO, 12 March 2012), para 228, 50.
- Latest bulletin (Ministry of Justice, 14 March 2013) at www.gov.uk/government/publications/statistics-on-privacy-injunctions--2.
- House of Commons/House of Lords Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions, Session 2010–12 Report (HL Paper 273 HC 1443, TSO, 12 March 2012), para 64, p 22.
- Ibid, para 65, p 23.
- Report of the Committee on Super Injunctions (2011), para 4.8, p 55.
- Ibid, para 2.26, p 24.
- G Benaim, ‘Privacy Protection: Have the Courts been Led Astray?' (6 September 2012), www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/06/privacy-protection.
- Ibid.
- Lord Justice Jackson, Preliminary Report: Civil Litigation Costs Review (1 May 2009), appendix 17, www.judiciary.gov.uk/JCO%2fDocuments%2fGuidance%2fapp17.pdf.
- Lord Justice Jackson, Review of Civil Litigation Costs: Final Report (TSO, December 2009) ch 2 [7] (p 23); appendix 1, 515.
- Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Minutes of Evidence, Press Standards, Privacy and Libel, Qs 918–74 (19 May 2009), para 213.
- Ibid, para 216.
- D Howarth, 'The Cost of Libel Actions: A Sceptical Note' (2011) 70 Cambridge Law Journal 397. See also R Moorhead, 'Are Libel Costs 150 Times Greater in England and Wales?', Lawyer Watch blog (29 May 2012), http://lawyerwatch.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/are-libel-costs-150-times-greater-in-england-and-wales.
- Ibid, 419.
- H Anthony, 'Alternative Libel Project Report: Costs, ADR and Leveson', Inforrm's Blog (3 April 2012), http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/alternative-libel-project-report-costs-adr-and-leveson-helen-anthony.
- Howarth (n 60) 397.
- Ibid, 419.
- At the time of writing, both the Government's Draft Royal Charter and a charter drafted by a group of newspaper publishers contained varying provisions for a new arbitration service.
- Cf the Lord Chief Justice's comments about cameras in court at his annual press conference, 27 September 2012, transcript available at www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/media-releases/2012/lcj-press-conference-2012. He said: '[A]ny further changes to the system will have to be examined with only one single criterion in mind, and that is whether by letting the cameras into that part of the process, the administration of justice is likely to suffer.'
Journal of Media Law
Volume 5, 2013 - Issue 1
Open access
446
Views
3
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles
Closed Data: Defamation and Privacy Disputes in England and Wales
Judith TownendCentre for Law, Justice and Journalism (CLJJ), City University London, UK. The author wishes to thank the contributors—on and offline—to the CLJJ's ‘Open Justice in the Digital Era’ project, and in particular, Lucy Series, University of Exeter, with whom she worked on a joint submission to the Cabinet Office's Open Data consultation, which has directly informed this article. Draft extracts of this piece have previously appeared online. All omissions and errors remain the author's own. All websites accessed June 2013.
Pages 31-44
|
Published online: 07 May 2015
Related research
People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.
Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.
Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.