Watch the video stream of Kleptoscope 12 ]]>When parliament changed the law on defamation in 2013, it thought it had solved the problem of libel tourism. It hadn’t, it merely moved it underground. The world’s richest people may now find it harder to win cases in British courts, but that doesn’t matter: it is sufficient for them merely to threaten proceedings. Even if media organisations are confident they would win in court, the prospect of a lengthy and expensive court case is enough to make even well-resourced companies back down. This has stifled British coverage of Putin’s kleptocracy, of sub-Saharan African theft, and of the looting of Malaysia in the 1MDB scandal. Hosted as usual by investigative journalist Oliver Bullough, the Frontline Club’s kleptoscope evening will look into how this happens, what it means, and how it affects individual journalists.
Chair
Oliver Bullough chairs our Kleptoscope series that investigates corruption and dirty money in London. Bullough is an award-winning journalist and the author of two books about Russian history and politics, The Last Man in Russia and Let Our Fame be Great and now Moneyland, why thieves and crooks now rule the world and how to take it back. He is also an expert guide for the Kleptocracy Tours initiative, which exposes money laundering via property in London.
Speakers
Clare Rewcastle Brown‘s reporting for her web site The Sarawak Report was instrumental in exposing the 1MDB scandal, perhaps the biggest single act of kleptocracy the world has ever known. She has been threatened by more lawyers than most of us will ever meet.
Bradley Hope works for the Wall Street Journal, and has also broken important aspects of the 1MDB scandal. His excellent book on the subject — Billion Dollar Whale — was published to rave reviews in the United States, but is yet to be published in the UK: for legal reasons.
Rupert Cowper-Coles is a solicitor who specialises in defending journalists against defamation claims, and who helped keep The Sarawak Report in business despite all the legal threats against it.
]]>By Nicole Hunt
Anders Behring Breivik, the man who admitted to setting off the 22 July bomb in Oslo, killing eight people, before killing 69 people on the island of Utoya, makes his first public appearance at Oslo City Court on Monday. On 12 September, the court rejected a police request for another closed door hearing, meaning media and victims’ families will be able to attend.
In Geneva, the UN Global Fund releases the findings of a four-month independent review into its financial safeguards, following accusations of mismanagement of funds in recipient countries.
Monday is also the six month anniversary of the beginning of military action in Libya. Forces from the US, the UK, France, Canada, UAE and Qatar began enforcing the no-fly zone authorised by UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973 on 19 March.
The trial of seven Italian scientists charged with manslaughter for failing to predict the April 2009 earthquake that killed over 300 people kicks off in L’Aquila on Tuesday. The scientists, who made up the city’s Great Risks Commission, are accused of failing to warn people of the potential risk of an earthquake and convincing people not to leave town a week before the earthquake struck.
In a Paris court, former News of the World chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck and representatives for News Group Newspapers appear charged with breaching France’s privacy and defamation laws in relation to a 2008 story about former FIA president Max Mosley. Mosley was awarded £60,000 in damages by the UK High Court in 2008, but the European Court of Human Rights rejected an application by Mosley in May that would have required media to inform a person before publishing a story containing their private information.
Amid concerns of potential post-election violence, Zambians go to the polls to elect their president and members of the National Assembly. Levy Mwanawasa won the 2006 election, but died in August 2008 and was replaced by Rupiah Banda, who is seeking his first full term.
The UN General Assembly general debate opens in New York on Wednesday, with all eyes on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who, barring last-minute diplomatic developments, is expected to seek a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood.
On Thursday, a verdict is expected in the first case brought in under France’s ‘burka ban’ laws. Two women in the town of Meaux were arrested for wearing the niqab veil in May, with one of them banned from attending the last hearing because her face was still covered.
At the UN General Assembly, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe are both scheduled to speak. Ahmadinejad’s past speeches have prompted walkouts from some delegations, while Mugabe’s have typically been anti-western. British Prime Minister David Cameron, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Ivorian President Alassane Ouatarra are also on the bill.
The week draws to a close with some high-profile court hearings and elections. Closing arguments are set to begin in Amanda Knox’s murder appeal in Perugia on Friday, while Egyptian courts are busy with the testimony of ruling military council member Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi at former President Hosni Mubarak’s trial on Saturday in Cairo, as well as the verdict in the Khaled Said murder trial in Alexandria. Two policemen are on trial for Said’s June 2010 death, which prompted widespread protests in Egypt at a time when police were rarely prosecuted.
In Bahrain, by-elections are held to replace 11 opposition lawmakers who resigned in March over government crackdowns on anti-regime protesters.
French Senate elections take place on Sunday, with half of the 346 seats up for grabs. Party performances will be closely watched ahead of next year’s presidential elections.
In Freiburg, Pope Benedict XVI wraps up a four-day visit to Germany to celebrate the 60th anniversary of his ordination as a priest
]]>
The threat to freedom of speech from costly libel cases and the "chilling" fear of legal action could be alleviated by reforming the system to deal with smaller cases faster and cap the maximum costs lawyers can charge.
That was at least one agreement in an otherwise combative debate amongst the panel and audience. If you missed the event, you can watch the whole thing here:
Event chair Clive Coleman – presenter of BBC Radio 4’s Law in Action programme – described a tumultuous year in UK libel. He said the rise of super-injunctions such as those taken out by multinational oil trader Trafigura highlighted the courts’ power to silence public commentary.
However, the recent success of high-profile libel defences, coupled with commitments from the major political parties to review libel law, prompted him to ask whether it had been “a good six months for the free press”.
Nigel Tait, partner at notorious law fim Carter Ruck, which represented Trafigura, said it had been a “stimulating 12 months” in libel law. He rejected the need for changes to libel legislation, agreeing that that "costs" are behind the “chilling” affect on freedom of speech. He came out in support of a libel tribunal to deal with more minor cases, arguing lawyers could not be expected to shoulder an increased workload.
I’m in favour of a two-tier system. For the really important cases…I could see why you’d have a proper high court judge and possibly a jury. But I don’t think you need the Rolls Royce service for bloggers, what’s written on the internet.
Media law expert and Reynolds Porter Chamberlain partner David Hooper said that the key to lower libel costs in much of Europe was the “swift result” reached in most cases. He said:
[Claimants] may often get results they don’t deserve. But the key thing is that they are cheap. What people really want is a quick decision by the best person available and that’s really what a tribunal would do.
Simon Singh insisted that public opinion, much of it voiced over social media, is helping defence against a defamation writ from the British Chiropractic Association, which he refered to as "two years of hell".
Tait argued that a severe cut in lawyers’ success fees, which in no-win-no-fee "conditional fee arrangment" cases often double costs for defendants, risked removing the incentive to take on difficult cases.
Leigh closed the debate on a cautionary note for journalists, saying that the press was also responsible for problems surrounding libel in the UK:
Unless we put the newspaper house in order it is very difficult to move the debate on libel reform further forward.
Journalism.co.uk covered the evening and you can read its coverage here and here.
]]>