Council defers defamation move
A local authority has decided to defer acting on lawyers’ advice that recent changes in policy allow it to sue critics for defamation. Rutland county council said today that following a council meeting last night ‘the option of taking legal action for defamation is not being pursued at this time’.
Rutland had raised eyebrows in local government circles by revealing that it had received legal advice that, under the new ‘general power of competence’ granted by the Localism Act 2011, local authorities had the power to sue for defamation.
This would be contrary to the decision in Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers (1993), where the Lords ruled that ‘not only is there no public interest favouring the right of organs of government, whether central or local, to sue for libel, but that it is contrary to the public interest that they should have it’.
The council took advice, from local government law firm Bevan Brittan, following criticism by councillors known as the Rutland Anti-Corruption Group.
At last night’s meeting, the council decided to seek an injunction to ‘prevent harassment of the chief executive and other officers by the Rutland Anti-Corruption Group and its members’. A decision on a defamation action had been ‘deferred to be potentially considered at some point in the future’.
It said the decision was taken against the backdrop of a detailed legal report produced by Bevan Brittan, which said the actions of the Anti-Corruption Group were ‘damaging the ability of the council to recruit outstanding officers, hampering efforts to secure external funding for education and recreation, and distracting senior officers from doing their job’.
The council’s leader, Roger Begy, said the decision sent a ‘strong message’.
‘We have a chief executive and staff team who are simply doing their jobs to the very best of their ability. Of course they should be subject to scrutiny and challenge as that is the basis of local democracy. However, they should not have to put up with false allegations about their conduct and regular questioning of their integrity and honesty.’
Comments
Defamation disaster
Is the reason they deferred a move to take libel action because the legal advice given about a local authority suing for libel highly questionable?
Perhaps even some readers on here might agree with that.
Advice
See the article published on the New Statesman website on 10 January.
The Act says that "a local authority has power to do anything that individuals generally may do". It does not create a right of action where the law does not recognise one. To conclude that it reverses existing case law and permits a local authority to sue for damages for libel is (to put it mildly) questionable.
Defamation
The problem and inherent danger is evident here for all to see if you allow local authorites as an institution to protect and litigate on defamation action. It is one thing for an authority to stand up and protect an employee, it is wholly different if that organisation replaces that individual whom it represents with life and limbs to adopt powers ordained by the public only for it to bite back with some force. Apart from the huge costs of dafamation actions, the onslaught of potentail legal actions, the authority simply opens a floodgate of litigants.
If the authority has a right to defend itself, the it is also right that individuals so affected by their acts or omissions is afforded the same right. So where a local authority due to some maladminstration in the benefits rules leads an action say for overpayment or parking violation which later transpires to be defective or simply wrong can an individual then not consider defamatory action after all aside from the adminsitration that individual has a cause of action more dear to him/herself, in that the authority by its wrongs has defamed or tarnished an individual whoever he/she may be.
This is one endless issue and nightmare scenario, then consider this what if the rules were relaxed would that lead more or less litigation, woud this lead to more or less of the concept of citizenship, would this afford or curtain our rights and freedom of expression, scrutiny, accountability, forethought, the ability of any individual to challenge or would we need string individuals or groups so as to question and make authorites accountable and responsible.
It is a sure sigh of instability and uncertainty when an authortiy feels the need to defend itself from criticism, the best course of action is for the authority to be confident and articulate its vision, ideas and ideals in a free world free from any fear from threat of litigation; let the work do the talking and let the employees act as ambassadors by so doing the authority becomes the authority and not authoritative.
Defamation Disarray
Two things which I think vindicate what I have said many times on this subject.
1) The level of knowledge of defamation law amongst solicitors, in theory (as is shown above) and particularly in practice, is extremely poor. I have reached that conclusion by simply reading many libel cases which have been brought to the High Court. Some of them are laughable.
So, never mind about teaching primary school kids about libel law and social media - teach the legal profession how it works first.
2) It seems having now stumbled across the correct legal position the council above are seeking out a harassment injunction. This is a trend I have predicted many times before. If you cannot sue for libel (if the allegations are true or for other reasons as above) then sue for harassment to silence those who question and criticise. I think this all points to the law being mis-used yet again.
Will the council see sense and recognise that this all leading to a massive own goal? I doubt it somehow as they seem to be in total disarray. Perhaps in that case their lawyers might reflect further on the potential pitfalls for them if they proceed.
It all adds up to another legal and media circus. Take your seats folks and enjoy.
specialists
Please don't assume all solicitors are experts in all types of law, however I agree with most of the rest of what you say.
The legal advice received from Bevan Brittain has been criticised to such an extent it appears it could be negligent - Will the council ask for their money back from the firm?
Its not a proper use of
Its not a proper use of taxpayers money
Untested
Bevan Brittan's bullish advice on the effect of section 1 of the 2011 Act is almost certainly wrong: it might have been prudent to say that, in the light of that section, it is arguable that local authorities can now bring defamation claims. But BB did at least point out that "the council's power to issue a defamation claim in its own name is...untested". The political wisdom of suing (whether for defamation or harassment) is, of course an entirely different matter.
Two QCs fighting over a bun - that's libel.
DG - point taken but I am really talking about basic libel stuff and the nonsense that ends up in court these days.
This interview in the Gazette perhaps sums up part of what I was saying. I assume the below case being referred to was in Ireland (where anything seems to be entertained in their libel courts) What with the sort of advice given out to Rutland Council and the courts filling up with nonsense cases not unlike the one below, it does suggest that there is a widespread misunderstanding amongst legal professionals about libel law and proportionality.
........................
Thursday 13 December 2012 by Jonathan Rayner
Who? Paul Tweed, 57, media law senior partner at London, Belfast and Dublin firm Johnsons.
Career high: ‘In 1987, I acted for two QCs accused of fighting over the last remaining chocolate eclair in a cake shop. The paper that printed the false story was ordered to pay them £50,000 each, which in 1987 was a very great deal of money.’
Defamation actions by public bodies
Readers might like to look at an article I wrote on this subject which appears in three parts on the Inforrm's blog. The first part is at http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/should-public-bodies-be-allowed-to-sue-in-defamation-part-1-england-and-echr-raymond-youngs/#more-9396