Report comment

Re: Jonathan Coad's quote - it is really disappointing to see a Daily Mail "enemies of the people" style attack on the judiciary by a solicitor, simply because he disagrees with their interpretation of the statute.

Re: John Ball's comments - If the Court was at the service of the "rich and powerful" presumably it would have found for the media. Yes, occasionally a celebrity will bring a libel claim, but Murdoch etc. are far richer and have far greater power.

An effective law of defamation is required in order to uphold press standards (and it is clear from Leveson that such a check/balance is badly needed). No-one who believes in good quality, well-researched responsible journalism can have an issue with this. There is no public interest in publishing false facts. There is no justification for sloppy-journalism or personal agendas ruining lives.

Insofar as libel tourism is concerned, I would invite anyone to name a recent claim falling into this category. It simply doesn't exist anymore. Section 9 of the Defamation Act prevents it and courts were already throwing out cases long before its inception. Libel tourism is largely an invention of the press.