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

John Penrose MP, Weston-Super-Mare 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 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.

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.

==

Debate in Parliament | Source |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Alliance0 10100.0%
Con238 (+1 tell) 1078.7%
DUP0 3037.5%
Green0 10100.0%
Independent0 10100.0%
Lab0 193 (+2 tell)075.9%
LDem38 (+1 tell) 0068.4%
SDLP0 2066.7%
Total:276 202076.1%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

NameConstituencyPartyVote
Peter BottomleyWorthing WestCon (front bench)aye

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive