Much though I disapprove of Hacked Off as an organisation backed by the great, good, rich and powerful, Hugh Tomlinson is right about defamation. There isn't much threat here: for punitives, there would presumably have to be knowledge, or the next best thing, that what was said wasn't true; and there's not much excuse for publishing in the light of that.

Punitives, in my view, are much more worrying as regards privacy. Privacy has already expanded much too far as a high constitutional principle, courtesy of ECHR Art 8 (examples being Campbell [2004] 2 A.C. 457, Murray [2007] EWHC 1908; [2007] E.M.L.R. 22 (Ch) and Mosley [2008] EWHC 1777 (QB); [2008] E.M.L.R. 20). It's an area where there is much more room for disagreement as to what is right and what isn't: what people should have to put up with and what they shouldn't. To say there might be a punitive award here would, I suspect, have a considerable chilling effect.

Andrew

Only a sub-issue in the ongoing Leveson farrago, but perhaps of interest to ODG members.

"There has, over the last few months, been widespread criticism from the press of Lord Justice Leveson’s recommendations about exemplary damages.  These recommendations have been widely misreported and misunderstood.  Many have been misled by words like “punitive” and “fines” into thinking that such damages would be imposed as a matter of routine on publishers who make mistake ..." (more)

[Inforrm's Blog, 27 March]