header-logo header-logo

27 April 2007
Issue: 7270 / Categories: Legal News , Defamation
printer mail-detail

Speaking ill of the dead could prove costly

An extension of the defamation laws which would allow the dead or their representatives to sue for libel are reportedly being consided by the government.

However, Nick Armstrong, partner in the media and entertainment team at Charles Russell, says the possibility of allowing a right of action over libelling the dead is “never going to happen”.

Potential litigants must currently be alive for a libel action to be launched. However, the Department for Constitutional Affairs is expected to release a consultation paper later this year that will include the option of extending libel laws to the dead.

Armstrong says that in the context of the Human Rights Act 1998, it is difficult to think of examples where the right to reputation of a dead person would or should prevail over the primary right of free expression, “particularly as it would have an impact not only on the reporting of current affairs but also the writing and analysis of recent history”.

He adds that there could be more scope for protecting the dead if the allegations were of the nature of personal intrusions into the family’s life. “Then, the Art 8 rights of privacy might well be something that family members could use. But that would not entail any change in the law—those rights are available now,” he says.

Issue: 7270 / Categories: Legal News , Defamation
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll