News: Northern Ireland and the mystery of the missing Defamation Act

As we noted in March, the Defamation Act 2013 will not extend to Northern Ireland. This is slightly surprising. In contrast to Scotland – where the law of defamation has never been the same as in England – the law in Northern Ireland has always, been in all relevant respects, identical to that in England in Wales (see Olivia O’Kane’s post here). Why then has the Northern Ireland Executive not passed a “legislative consent motion” to extend the Defamation Act to the province?

Responsibility in Public Office? – Cathy James

One cannot fail to be shocked by the way in which the Cumbrian police have dealt with those who leaked information to the press about the excessive expenses of their recently elected Police and Crime Commissioner.  The Commissioner, Richard Rhodes, held a press conference in which he admitted that it was wrong to have incurred the cost of hiring a private chauffeur at the public’s expense, but then said he was not responsible for the decision to prosecute those who put the information into the public domain. 

Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003: Threat or Menace? – Lilian Edwards

Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, once one of the more obscure provisions of the cybercrime world, has had a good workout lately. Famously, Paul Chambers, delayed at Doncaster Airport and frustrated at possibly not getting to see his girlfriend, was accused and convicted of sending ‘by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character‘ (s 127(a)) because he had sent a humorous and frustrated tweet saying: ”Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I am blowing the airport sky high!!’.

South Africa: The five ingredients for a constitutional national security law – Dario Milo

As South Africa’s parliament finalises its debate on the Protection of State Information Bill, [pdf] it is important to take a step back from the detail and go back to basic principles.

Open Justice: In England, justice is open to all – like the Ritz Hotel – Eoin O’Dell

Thus (probably) spoke a nineteenth century Irish judge, Sir James Mathew (1830-1908) (pictured). The Ritz is now owned by David and Frederick Barclay, and they are at present locked in what the media are describing as “bitter” legal proceedings (in tabloid-speak, is there any other kind of legal dispute?) being taken against them in London by Irish businessman and property developer Paddy McKillen. McKillen and the Barclays own stakes in a high profile hotel group; and in these proceedings, McKillen alleges that the Barclays have been attempting to seize control of the group by unlawful means. He is no stranger to high-stakes litigation, having successfully thwarted the National Asset Management Agency in the Irish courts in Dellway Investments v NAMA [2011] IESC 4 (3 February 2011).

Case Comment: R (Guardian News and Media Limited) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court – Open justice and access to court documents – Edward Craven

The case of R (Guardian News and Media Limited) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court ([2012] EWCA Civ 420) is a landmark decision for open justice and the media’s ability to access court documents. Drawing on a broad survey of domestic, European and international materials, the Court of Appeal overturned the Administrative Court and upheld the existence of an inherent common law power to order disclosure of documents which have been placed before a judge and referred to in open proceedings.

Strasbourg Case Law: Gillberg v. Sweden, Criminal conviction for refusal to give access to research files, no violation of Convention – Dirk Voorhoof and Rónán Ó Fathaigh

In its decision in Gillberg v Sweden the Grand Chamber of the European Court has, more firmly than the 2010 judgment of the Third Section, confirmed that Swedish professor, Christopher Gillberg (pictured right) could not rely on his right of privacy under Article 8, nor on his (negative) right to freedom of expression and information under Article 10 of the Convention to justify his refusal to give access to research material at Gothenburg University (see comment on Chamber judgment here). The Court unanimously concluded that the criminal conviction of the professor for not giving access to the requested documents did not affect his rights under Article 8 and 10 of the Convention. Most importantly, the Grand Chamber also referred under Article 10 of the Convention to the right “to receive information in the form of access to the public documents” ([93] and [94]).

Disclosure of Politicians’ Tax Returns and Freedom of Expression: drawing on the Indian experience – Hugh Tomlinson QC

The disclosure by the London Mayoral candidates of their tax returns has led to a wider debate about tax disclosure by politicians.  The Chancellor, George Osborne, has said he would be “very happy” for the government to consider publishing the personal tax returns of senior cabinet ministers.  The Prime Minister has said he is “very relaxed” about publishing his tax returns and believes the “time is coming” for politicians to be more open about their personal finances.

Seeing justice done – open justice and the limits of the common law – Eoin O’Dell

A little while ago, I argued that liberty, democracy and the rule of law together constitute the constitutional trinity on which many modern states are founded, and that, not only are there the traditionally understood strong liberal and democratic justifications for freedom of expression, there are also equally strong free speech justifications founded in the rule of law. In last week’s decision in R (on the application of Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2012] EWCA Civ 420 (03 April 2012), the Court of Appeal for England and Wales made this point in rhetoric of great eloquence, perspicuity and vigour (though the judgments are curiously ambivalent in their ambit and ambition).

News: The Guardian’s court victory is an important step towards transparency – David Banisar

The Court of Appeal today took a bold step forward in advancing court transparency. The decision in R (Guardian News and Media Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court ([2012] EWCA Civ 420) established in common law for the first time the right of ordinary people and the media to obtain documents that are used in court cases.