Call to review Net defamation law

The Law Commission has called for a full review of the law of defamation over fears that it puts Internet service providers (ISPs) under pressure to remove potentially defamatory material without considering whether there is actually a problem.

The commission's preliminary investigation into the issue, carried out at the request of the Lord Chancellor, said that if a further study finds there is a need for reform, potential changes include exempting ISPs from liability for defamatory material on Web sites they host, and extending section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 to widen the 'innocent dissemination' defence.

Law Commissioner Professor Hugh Beale QC said some ISPs receive more than 100 defamation complaints a year - including solicitors' letters from companies objecting to Web sites set up by disgruntled customers - and that because of the law, ISPs often remove the sites without considering whether the information is in the public interest, or true.

'There is a possible conflict between the pressure to remove material, even if true, and the emphasis placed on freedom of expression by the European Convention on Human Rights,' he said.

The commission also said there was no need to reform the law of contempt to deal with the possibility that jurors might find out about a defendant's previous convictions on the Internet, saying it already contains 'sufficient safeguards'.

This puts the commission at odds with Justin Walford, in-house barrister at Express Newspapers, who last week told a conference that contempt of court laws need to be reformed to deal with the danger of the Internet influencing jurors.

'The real problem is not publications or broadcasts, but the unfettered access many jurors have to the Internet, and the vast array of official and unofficial sites and e-mails they can view,' he said, speaking at last week's Law for Journalists conference, organised by the Newspaper Society and UK Press Gazette.

He suggested more research be carried out inside the jury room to find out what is prejudicial.

Also at the conference, Alastair Brett, head of legal at Times Newspapers, expressed concern about libel cases which remain live for years because material remains in newspapers' on-line archives and are regarded as new publications when downloaded.

The Law Commission has recommended a review of how the definition of a 'publication' in defamation law interacts with the limitation period applied to archive material.

Neil Rose and Victoria MacCallum