Defamation Bill

AMENDMENTS
TO BE MOVED
ON REPORT

Clause 4

LORD MCNALLY

 

Page 2, line 38, at end insert—

“(1A) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), in determining whether the defendant has shown the matters mentioned in subsection (1), the court must have regard to all the circumstances of the case.”

Clause 5

LORD PHILLIPS OF SUDBURY

LORD FAULKS

 

Page 3, line 9, leave out subsections (1) to (5) and insert—

“(1) It is a defence for the operator to show that—

(a) it was not the operator who posted the statement,

(b) the operator took reasonable care in relation to its posting,

(c) the operator did not know and had no reason to believe that what it did caused, encouraged or contributed to the posting of the statement, and

(d) the operator responded to a complaint about the statement with expedition and took such action in relation to the statement as was reasonable in the circumstances.

(2) In considering the reasonableness of a defence under this section, a court shall take into account any steps taken by an operator to establish or adopt, and then to enforce or implement, any anti-defamation code of practice, any complaints procedure and any system for ascertaining and making available to a claimant the identity of any person posting any statement sufficient for the claimant to bring proceedings against the person.”

LORD MCNALLY

 

Page 3, line 32, at beginning insert “Subject to any provision made by virtue of subsection (6A),”

 

Page 3, line 37, at end insert—

“(6A) Regulations may make provision about the circumstances in which a notice which is not a notice of complaint is to be treated as a notice of complaint for the purposes of this section or any provision made under it.”

LORD LUCAS

THE EARL OF ERROLL

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

 

Page 3, line 37, at end insert—

“( ) Regulations may make provision for a procedure whereby—

(a) a complainant may apply to the court for a declaration that his complaint meets the basic requirements of a libel claim; or

(b) a website operator or the person who posted the statement complained of may apply to the court for a negative declaration that a notice of complaint fails to meet the basic requirements of a libel claim,

provided in each case that the party making the application complies with the procedure laid down in any such Regulations.”

LORD MCNALLY

 

Page 3, line 44, at end insert—

“(9A) The defence under this section is defeated if the claimant shows that the operator of the website has acted with malice in relation to the posting of the statement concerned.”

Clause 6

LORD MCNALLY

 

Page 4, line 4, after “journal” insert “(whether published in electronic form or otherwise)”

Clause 7

LORD MCNALLY

 

Page 5, line 39, at end insert “or its auditors”

Clause 13

LORD MCNALLY

 

Page 9, line 5, at end insert “, or

(b) any person who was not the author, editor or publisher of the defamatory statement to stop distributing, selling or exhibiting material containing the statement.

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

Prepared 1st February 2013