Defamation Bill — Clause 10 — Additional Restrictions to Circumstances Where Someone Other Than The Author, Editor or Publisher of Material Can Have Defamation Action Brought Against Them — 12 Sep 2012 at 17:11

The majority of MPs voted against adding further restrictions to the circumstances in which someone other than the author, editor or publisher of material can have a defamation action brought against them. The additional restrictions being that there must be a prima facia case that the statement complained of is defamatory and the court must be satisfied that such person did not know that the statement was defamatory until a claim to that effect was made and did not reasonably believe that there was a good defence to any action brought upon it.’

MPs were considering the Defamation Bill^[1][2]. The amendment rejected in this vote was:

• Amendment 8, page 8, line 26, leave out from ‘court’ to end of line 28 and insert—
• ‘(a) is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable for an action to be brought against the author, editor or publisher; and
• (b) there is a prima facia case that the statement complained of is defamatory; and
• (c) is satisfied that such person did not know that the statement was defamatory until a claim to that effect was made and did not reasonably believe that there was a good defence to any action brought upon it.’.

This would have affected clause 10 of the Bill^[3] which at the time of the vote stated:

• Action against a person who was not the author, editor etc
• 1) A court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action for defamation brought against a person who was not the author, editor or

publisher of the statement complained of unless the court is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable for an action to be brought against the author, editor or publisher.

• (2) In this section “author”, “editor” and “publisher” have the same meaning as in section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996.

and had the amendment been passed it would have become:

• Action against a person who was not the author, editor etc
• 1) A court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action for defamation brought against a person who was not the author, editor or

publisher of the statement complained of unless the court

• ‘(a) is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable for an action to be brought against the author, editor or publisher; and
• (b) there is a prima facia case that the statement complained of is defamatory; and
• (c) is satisfied that such person did not know that the statement was defamatory until a claim to that effect was made and did not reasonably believe that there was a good defence to any action brought upon it.’.

Examples of persons who are not to be considered the author, editor or publisher are contained in subsection (3) of section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 and include those involved in printing, producing, distributing material containing the statement; the broadcaster of a live programme containing the statement and the operator of or provider of access to a communications system by means of which the statement is transmitted.

==

• [1] Parliament's webpage on the Defamation Bill (now an Act)
• [2] Explanatory notes to the Defamation Bill (now an Act)
• [3] Clause 10 of the Defamation Bill as at the time of the vote

Debate in Parliament | Source |