HL Deb 15 February 1990 vol 515 cc1532-3WA
Lord Campbell of Alloway

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they have completed their review of defamation law.

The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)

The Government have examined current issues and complaints relating to the law of defamation and have found that there are justified criticisms principally concerning the way in which the law of defamation operates in practice. The Government now propose the following series of reforming measures.

The powers of the Court of Appeal to review the awards of civil juries, particularly in defamation cases, are not adequate. Even if the Court of Appeal considers that a jury award is excessive or inadequate it can only substitute its own award if both parties agree. Otherwise it is limited to ordering a new trial, which involves further delay and expense to the parties. It is therefore proposed to empower the Court of Appeal itself, in cases where it can now order a retrial, to substitute for the sum awarded by the jury such sum as appears to the Court of Appeal to be proper. This will be done by enlarging the existing statutory powers of the rule committee.

The present rules and practice for pleadings in defamation cases have been criticised as being unnecessarily complex, and adding to the difficulty and cost of preparing and conducting litigation. I intend to invite the Supreme Court Procedure Committee to examine the rules and practice, and to propose reforms. The committee is a body of judges and practitioners which was established in 1982 to make recommendation in relation to Supreme Court practice and procedure.

A plaintiff who is considering whether or not to accept a payment into court needs to know whether the judge will give him an opportunity to make a statement in open court which will clear his name. As a result of a recent change in the rules, a plaintiff can now apply to the judge for approval of a proposed statement before accepting a payment in.

Once the problem of complexity has been tackled I will wish to consider providing for some categories of defamation cases to be heard in the county court, with a view to reducing delay and cost and ensuring the most appropriate use of judicial resources.

I intend to issue two consultation papers inviting views on proposals to modify specific aspects of the substantive law of defamation. These papers will deal with the problems of those who use advanced technology and innocently disseminate defamatory materials, and the problems which arise when a party to defamation proceedings has died.