Libel capital of the world: A town called Sue

The title is short, but its lengthy sub-title is frightening. A new book by famed British media lawyer Geoffrey Robertson shows how defamation and privacy have been weaponised. The book is Lawfare: How Russians, the rich and the government try to prevent free speech and how to stop them.

Robertson, a King’s Counsel and head of Europe’s largest civil rights legal practice, has played a leading role in some of the most celebrated British and European media legal battles of the past four decades. He is co-author of the authoritative book Media Law.

His latest book, which I have just read, is an excoriating indictment of defamation and privacy laws and torts. He writes of the English legal system but many of the laws are reflected by those in New Zealand and the torts form part of the precedents on which our own common law legal system relies.

Free speech has been described as a “quintessentially UK right”, bound to the country’s constitutional foundations (and, by extension, to New Zealand’s legal traditions). Robertson says this is “nonsense”. The Magna Carta was silent on the matter and sixty years later the first law was passed to protect the reputations of ‘great men of the realm’. He then sets out to show how existing libel and privacy ‘rights’ are not only unfit for purpose but have been exploited to the point where they create the antithesis of free speech.

Lawfare – which takes its name from the practice of using legal systems to damage and delegitimise an opponent or deter an individual’s use of their legal rights – describes how English law is being used as a weapon against reporters and news organisations on a scale that seriously threatens investigative journalism. Continue reading “Libel capital of the world: A town called Sue”

Peter Ellis Appeal: Does reputation extend beyond the grave?

Should the restoration of Peter Ellis’ reputation from beyond the grave have publishers worried and defamation lawyers rubbing their hands in anticipation that a basic tenet of the law had been overturned by Tikanga Māori?

Well, not yet. As things stand, only living people can be defamed, and your reputation dies with you. However, could we be feeling the first winds of change?

Certainly, the New Zealand Herald’s senior political correspondent Audrey Young believes the Supreme Court has opened Pandora’s box. In a highly critical commentary yesterday she accused the Supreme Court of “judicial activism with a capital A” and described the court’s use of tikanga as “audacious”.

She claims the court is rewriting the law on tikanga and pre-empting a Law Commission study, requested by the government, on the role of tikanga in common law (also known as case law or judicial precedent).

Peter Ellis, who was no relation, had his convictions for child molestation at Christchurch’s Civic Creche quashed by the Supreme Court last week. He had died in 2019.

In the 152-page judgement that overturned the case against him, there is no mention of tikanga or his reputation. The findings are limited to the conduct of the case against Ellis and the various appeals that followed his conviction. The judgement is based solely on established legal principles.

Young’s criticism related, in fact, to an earlier decision by the court to allow Ellis’ appeal to continue after his death, in part because a majority of the court accepted that Tikanga Māori should be woven into the fabric of our justice system. Tikanga includes an enduring place for mana that transcends death. Reputation may be seen as a simplified definition of mana. Continue reading “Peter Ellis Appeal: Does reputation extend beyond the grave?”

Kill Facebook ‘comments’ before the buck stops with you

We can take a glass-half-full or a glass-half-empty approach to the decision by Australia’s highest court making anyone with a Facebook page liable for any comments others post on it.

The judgement caused great wailing and gnashing of teeth in media as far afield as Ireland and India and not simply because it opened the way for a youth detention centre inmate to sue the Australia’s biggest news groups over things they didn’t say. As Harvard University’s Nieman Lab put it: “[It] makes publishers legally responsible for every idiot Facebook user who leaves a comment.”

That is just a little bit scary, but let’s start with the optimistic view. Continue reading “Kill Facebook ‘comments’ before the buck stops with you”