*/
Privacy
Amid criticisms of hijacking the Defamation Bill, the House of Lords has voted in favour of adding a last-minute “Leveson clause”, with 272 voting for, and 141 against.
The amendment to the Defamation Bill, for a Leveson-style low-cost arbitration service, was put forward by Lord Puttnam at report stage: “Lord Justice Leveson has already proposed a ready-made and carefully considered solution,” Puttnam said. “The advantage of our simple amendments is that they closely follow those recommendations…They also have the merit of showing that the arbitration service proposed by Lord Justice Leveson can be put into effect in a remarkably simple and straightforward manner.”
Speaking against attaching the amendment to a defamation Bill, was Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who also warned that the scheme would result in complex legal disputes: “The scheme envisaged by these amendments is inquisitorial and not adversarial. It is not a voluntary scheme because of the threat of exemplary damages for failure to use a recognised arbitration service. The arbitrator does not satisfy the requirements of judicial process by an independent court or tribunal established by law. The arbitrator can dispense with hearings in his or her discretion. There is no right of appeal to an independent court or tribunal and the process is free for complainants but to be paid for by the press. In my view, such a scheme would be incompatible with Articles 6 and 10 of the convention.”
The third reading – a final chance to amend the Bill – was scheduled to take place on 25 February. The amendment will then be considered by the Commons.
The amendment to the Defamation Bill, for a Leveson-style low-cost arbitration service, was put forward by Lord Puttnam at report stage: “Lord Justice Leveson has already proposed a ready-made and carefully considered solution,” Puttnam said. “The advantage of our simple amendments is that they closely follow those recommendations…They also have the merit of showing that the arbitration service proposed by Lord Justice Leveson can be put into effect in a remarkably simple and straightforward manner.”
Speaking against attaching the amendment to a defamation Bill, was Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who also warned that the scheme would result in complex legal disputes: “The scheme envisaged by these amendments is inquisitorial and not adversarial. It is not a voluntary scheme because of the threat of exemplary damages for failure to use a recognised arbitration service. The arbitrator does not satisfy the requirements of judicial process by an independent court or tribunal established by law. The arbitrator can dispense with hearings in his or her discretion. There is no right of appeal to an independent court or tribunal and the process is free for complainants but to be paid for by the press. In my view, such a scheme would be incompatible with Articles 6 and 10 of the convention.”
The third reading – a final chance to amend the Bill – was scheduled to take place on 25 February. The amendment will then be considered by the Commons.
Privacy
Amid criticisms of hijacking the Defamation Bill, the House of Lords has voted in favour of adding a last-minute “Leveson clause”, with 272 voting for, and 141 against.
Chair of the Bar reports back
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
A career shaped by advocacy beyond her practice, and the realities of living with an invisible disability – Dr Natasha Shotunde, Black Barristers’ Network Co-Founder and its Chair for seven years, reflects on a decade at the Bar
The odds of success are as unforgiving as ever, but ambition clearly isn’t in short supply. David Wurtzel’s annual deep‑dive into the competition cohort shows who’s entering, who’s thriving and the trends that will define the next wave
Where to start and where to find help? Monisha Shah, Chair of the King’s Counsel Selection Panel, provides an overview of the silk selection process, debunking some myths along the way
Do chatbot providers owe a duty of care for negligent misstatements? Jasper Wong suggests that the principles applicable to humans should apply equally to machines
There is no typical day in the life as a Supreme Court judicial assistant, says Josephine Gillingwater, and that’s what makes the role so enjoyably diverse
