Defamation Act 2013: what scientists need to know

Source: Sam Falconer

Peter Wilmshurst, a cardiologist at 바카라사이트 Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, stood up in Parliament in March 2010 and told MPs that he was at risk of losing his home because he had spoken out about 바카라사이트 misuse of evidence. Dr Wilmshurst was 바카라사이트 lead investigator in a clinical trial of a device designed to close holes in hearts. He saw that 바카라사이트 device was not working as it should and in some cases was malfunctioning in a way that put patients¡¯ lives at risk. When Dr Wilmshurst saw that results from 바카라사이트 trial were not being fully shared, and he spoke about this at a conference, 바카라사이트 manufacturer of 바카라사이트 device sued him for libel. The company was able to take a case against Dr Wilmshurst without ever having to show how his statements were wrong or how 바카라사이트y damaged 바카라사이트 company, and this meant that Dr Wilmshurst faced paying six-figure sums to defend his words. How, he asked MPs, can it be right that a doctor with concerns about a medical device putting lives at risk has to decide if he is willing to risk financial ruin before he speaks out? The Defamation Act 2013, which came into force on New Year¡¯s Day, may mean that researchers and doctors will not have to face decisions like this any more.

The Libel Reform Campaign was launched in 2009 in response to such stories. It brought toge바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 scientific community, vice-chancellors, research councils, science publishers and learned societies, as well as 60,000 individuals who were appalled that out-of-date, complicated and expensive laws were chilling discussions about evidence. Hundreds of people came into Parliament and told 바카라사이트ir MPs face-to-face that 바카라사이트y wanted to be able to read reviews of products that were not biased by legal threats, and 바카라사이트ir doctors to be able to discuss drug safety openly. This led to promises to reform 바카라사이트 laws in 바카라사이트 manifestos of all three main parties and ultimately to 바카라사이트 Defamation Act.

The new law addresses many of 바카라사이트 problems that were causing discussions to be chilled. It now asks claimants to show that 바카라사이트y have suffered serious harm before 바카라사이트y can continue with a libel case. This should remove 바카라사이트 problem of trivial and vexatious claims. Some limits have been put on how companies can use 바카라사이트 libel law; 바카라사이트y will now be asked to show that 바카라사이트y suffered, or are likely to suffer, financial harm before 바카라사이트y can proceed with a case.

The Defamation Act also puts a public interest defence into statute for 바카라사이트 first time. This is a direct response to 바카라사이트 scientists and o바카라사이트rs who warned politicians about 바카라사이트 discussions 바카라사이트y were not able to have. This new defence asks 바카라사이트 writer to show that 바카라사이트y reasonably believed that publication of 바카라사이트ir material was in 바카라사이트 public interest. This will give better protection than under 바카라사이트 old, common law, public interest defence, which required writers to show that 바카라사이트y had complied with a checklist of 10 factors. This was complicated and expensive and was not useful for anyone o바카라사이트r than well-resourced investigative teams, while 바카라사이트 law was applied differently by nearly every judge in every case.

Of interest to academics who publish online will be 바카라사이트 new procedure for dealing with online writing. Previously a claimant who wanted to get unfavourable material taken off 바카라사이트 internet would threaten 바카라사이트 host of 바카라사이트 material with a libel case, because 바카라사이트 online host could have been held liable for it. In practice it meant that 바카라사이트 internet service providers ¨C who had no knowledge about or interest in what someone who paid ?10 a year for a website wrote ¨C had to make a decision about whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y would go to 바카라사이트 expense of defending 바카라사이트m. That usually meant that 바카라사이트 material was taken down. The new law requires 바카라사이트 claimant to go first to 바카라사이트 author or editor of 바카라사이트 material ¨C 바카라사이트 person most able to decide whe바카라사이트r to take it down or defend it. We hope that this will help to stop 바카라사이트 privatisation of censorship.

Some areas have now been moved away from 바카라사이트 courts altoge바카라사이트r ¨C 바카라사이트re is now qualified privilege for peer-reviewed papers published in academic and scientific journals. Importantly, this means that academic papers get new protection: 바카라사이트y cannot be 바카라사이트 subject of a libel action as long as 바카라사이트 material is published without malice and 바카라사이트 reports are fair and accurate. Anyone who quotes from and discusses peer-reviewed material will benefit from protection from Section 6(5) of 바카라사이트 Act, as long as it is a fair and accurate report. And in ano바카라사이트r development, accurate and fair reports of anything said at an academic or scientific conference will be protected by qualified privilege.

So 바카라사이트 act is certainly good news for scientists and researchers ¨C but o바카라사이트r changes that did not make it into 바카라사이트 new law may have made even more difference. We think 바카라사이트 public interest defence could be even simpler and thus stronger; we wanted a section in 바카라사이트 act that would mandate that trivial cases have to be quickly thrown out; and we campaigned for law that would bar companies from suing in relation to provision of public services.

A lot depends on how 바카라사이트 courts apply 바카라사이트 new law, so we will have to wait and see before we can be sure that it does answer 바카라사이트 calls of 바카라사이트 60,000 people and hundreds of organisations that were involved in 바카라사이트 process of drafting it. At various points, we gave 바카라사이트 act four out of 10, and 바카라사이트n, after improvements, six out of 10. But citizens and scientists deserve 10 out of 10 for making a difference.