Reform on The English Libel Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Reform on The English Libel Law - Essay Example However, does the Defamation Bill reflect these concerns? This essay seeks to critique the current Defamation Bill (As Amended on Report, ordered to be printed on 5 February 2013) particularly focusing on Clauses 4, 5 and 6 thereof. The said Clauses provide for some of the defences to an action for defamation. Clause 4 Clause 4 refers to the truthfulness of the imputation which if shown by the defendant to be substantially true, then it may be a defence in an action for imputation (Defamation Bill, Clause 4). Additionally, where there are two or more distinct imputations, the defence of truth will not be diminished if the imputations which appear to be substantially true, those not shown to be substantially true do not significantly injure the claimant’s reputation (Defamation Bill, Clause 4). This clause seeks to substitute the previous common law defence of justification (Shaw & Chamberlain, 2011, p. 49). The defendant must show that the imputation made is ‘substantial ly true’, a stand of the common law (Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1772). Although there is no definition on what is â€Å"substantially true,† still, there is no ambiguity as to the meaning of truth (Mullis & Scott, 2011, p. 12, citing the Oxford English Dictionary). ... 12). Although it should be the claimant that should have the burden of proof to demonstrate the falsity of an imputation since the former is in a better position to demonstrate such, this is not always true as the facts would wholly rely on the kind of imputation made (Mullis & Scott, 2011, p. 12). The terms â€Å"substantially true† and â€Å"serious harm† on claimant’s reputation, were not defined in the bill and opens a wide interpretation as to its meaning (Mullis & Scott, 2011). Litigation may likely occur especially on the demarcation between those considered as substantially true and which are not, or those considered as a significant injury to a claiman t’s repute (Young, 2011). Further, although the truth may be known, it may nevertheless be difficult to establish (Flood v Times, [2009] EWHC 2375 (QB)), (Young, 2011). There is no criterion to lessen the probability of increasing false information especially as to those which may occur after publication (Young, 2011). It would be hard to comply with the required responsible journalism especially where the imputation was false, but was nevertheless supported by sufficient evidence that the statement was true at the time when such a statement was published by the responsible publisher (Young, 2011). Clause 5 This is the defence of â€Å"Honest Opinion† and sets forth the conditions that it must be a statement of opinion; such opinion is of public interest; the â€Å"honest person could have held the opinion† based on â€Å"a) a fact which existed when the statement complained of was published; and (b)  a privileged statement published before the statement comp lained of† (Shaw & Chamberlain, 2011, p. 49, citing the Defamation Bill).