header-logo header-logo

Speaking ill of the dead could prove costly

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

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll