 |
10th
March 2005, The Scotsman
ON 2 DECEMBER 2004, George Galloway MP was awarded £150,000
in the High Court in London following allegations in the Daily
Telegraph that he had been in the payroll of Saddam Hussein.
The story was published on 23 April and he raised proceedings
on 27 June. So by my calculations it took "Gorgeous"
George around 18 months from the start of proceedings to restore
his reputation.
The strange thing is that 18 months is, in fact, way over the
accepted norm in England for disposing of a libel action. The
courts have made it clear that the whole thing should be done
and dusted within one year. The Galloway case was complex with
arguments about privilege and the public interest, and it is
not surprising that it over-ran a little.
|
|
If
only a single year was the accepted norm here from the time
of raising proceedings to getting judgment. I am aware of cases
where it has taken four years to reach that position. By the
time you get to court, either everyone has forgotten what the
story was about or the individual is so damaged by the allegation
that it is now common currency that it was true. The basis of
defamation proceedings is the restoration of reputation, and
that simply can’t be achieved properly four years after
the event.
In England, the libel courts are much more proactive in setting,
and then policing, the procedural timetable up to and including
trial and can impose costs sanctions on a party who is dragging
heels or even strike out the case completely.
|
|
But
in Scotland, although defamation involves personal injury, it
is excluded from fast-track personal injury claims in the Court
of Session. Court rules state it is not intended that actions
of defamation or any actions which are not, in ordinary parlance,
concerned with personal injuries, should be covered by these
rules. So if, for example, Tommy Sheridan MSP had slipped and
broken his arm outside the News of the World offices in November
last year, he would have been given a timetable by the courts
to progress his personal injury action as quickly as possible
against them. By contrast, when the NoW allege he is involved
in group orgies, he joins the queue. No timetable - he is at
the mercy of the courts in allotting dates to hear his case.
And then, of course, the proof will be held before the designated
defamation judge. Despite being involved in this field for almost
15 years, I still don’t know who that is. Nor, I think,
do the courts.
It is not surprising litigants decide they’re better off
raising defamation proceedings in London. Unless the Scottish
courts are careful they will not see libel actions before them
in the future.
|
|
