Overhauling the libel laws

Deputy prime minister Nick Clegg says he's going to revise the libel laws in this country. Not before time. Under current legislation - which dates back to the 1996 Defamation Act and earlier - wealthy plaintiffs can use the law to silence critics and those who disagree with with them. This is not what successive Defamation Acts were set up to do.

Their purpose is to afford protection to a person's good name and offer redress when their reputation is unjustly sullied. The starting point in English law is that we are all entitled to a good name. Any attempt to damage that good name will result in the clearing of the said reputation and the award of some form of recompense for the damage suffered - unless the person who inflicts the damage can prove that there is good reason for their accusation.

Proving there is good reason for defaming a person is no easy task. The defendant, for that is what the publisher of the defamatory remarks becomes in a libel case, must prove their accusation is true.

Or if the defamation is published as an opinion, the publisher must show that the statement made was fair comment. Or the publisher must show that they are protected by privilege. These defences are not always easy to prove. The law is weighted in favour of the aggrieved party. Mounting a successful defence can be costly and time-consuming.

Given the value of a person's good name, one might argue, that it is right and proper that defending an attack on a reputation should be difficult to prove.

But the system is flawed where those with great resources embark upon legal action knowing that their opponents are not as well endowed. Negative comments made about a giant corporation may well be true but by weight of wallet, the large company can involve the publisher is so many delaying arguments and tactics that the truth may become a victim to expediency.

The publisher may not have the resources to take on the giant corporation and so concedes defeat even though they have right on its side. Journalists, academics and scientists have all been bullied by wealthy individuals and/or companies who disagree with what they have said - no matter what the truth is.

Any reform of the Defamation Act that puts a stop to this bullying and intimidation is to welcomed.

Now all Mr Clegg has to do is to put paid the practice of super-injunctions where again the rich and famous use the might of their wealth to cover their indiscretions