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:

Free Videos by Ustream.TV

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”.

Guardian investigations editor David Leigh offered a cautious response, saying recent successes only helped to limit increasing encroachment on freedom of speech. Even social media’s role in undermining the Trafigura injunction was merely an “attempt to hold the line”, he said.

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.

By Ewan Palmer and Patrick Smith

The shark-infested waters of UK media law could be about to get a little safer, thanks to Ministry of Justice reforms to curb extortionate lawyer success fees earned through "no win no fee" conditional fee arrangement cases (CFA).

But Jack Straw’s quick-fire legislation (read the responses to the consultation here, in pdf format) has failed to win enough support to pass in the pre-election bill "wash-up" and reforms will now fall on to the next government, whoever that is…

We discuss this and more at the Frontline Club on Tuesday April 13, science writer with Simon Singh, Guardian investigations editor David Leigh, Carter Ruck partner Nigel Tait and David Hooper, from Reynolds Porter Chamberlain. Helping us make sense of all this is our chair Clive Coleman, presenter of BBC Radio 4’s Law in Action programme. Book here for tickets.

But until then, here’s out brief primer on what’s afoot in media law reform…

Defamation lawyers can currently charge a success fee in CFA cases of 100 percent of the total costs – effectively meaning lawyers double their fees, leaving defendants with a massive bill to pay, often even if they succeed in defending the case. Jack Straw’s proposals would introduce a success fee cap of ten percent.

The law firms argue that they need to charge high fees to counteract the risk of losing in a CFA case – but thanks in to the UK’s case law-based system and the burden of proof being placed on the defendent, very few libel writs fought and won by media bodies in the High Court.

CFAs: a necessary evil?

CFAs were introduced to help people who can’t afford expensive legal fees to sue for libel, which is one reason some MPs like Labour’s Tom Watson voted against this latest law change proposal.

But what started out as an admirable policy has since been abused by those who can afford to pay their own fees. As law firms choose not to take on difficult cases, both smaller and large media bodies are experiencing what they would call a "chilling effect" on their journalism; many would rather settle out of court than face the crippling expenses that would occur if they fought the case.

Libel Tourism

The current libel laws means it is possible for statements published abroad – but visible to a UK audience somehow – abroad to be the subject of a writ. This has the effect of attracting people with little connection to the UK to London’s High Court to settle their disputes and protect reputations.

As The Times’ legal editor Frances Gibb puts it, London is now the libel capital of the world, being the scene for many cases brought by businessmen and companies from countries where such stringent laws don’t exist.