asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their reasons for not giving effect to the recommendation by the Law Commission in Criminal Law: Report on Criminal Libel (Cmnd 9618) of September 1985 to abolish the common law offence of criminal libel and replace it with a new offence aimed at the deliberately defamatory lie; and [HL3249]
Whether they will introduce legislation to abolish the common law offence of criminal libel. [HL3250]
Successive Governments have recognised that in its present form the law of criminal libel as it applies to defamatory matter has shortcomings. But, because it has fallen very much into disuse, they have not regarded changing it as a legislative priority.
However, we plan to seek views on the possible abolition of criminal libel in respect of defamatory material as part of a wider consultation on certain other aspects of defamation law. We hope to publish a consultation paper later in the year.
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will review the common law offence of criminal libel in the light of the remarks of Lord Scott of Foscote in Ashley and Another v Chief Constable of Sussex Police that it is a general rule of the criminal law that no one is “to be punished for the consequences of an honest mistake” (opinions, 23 April, 2008). [HL3288]
Lord Scott's remarks were made in a very different context, but the general principle is a factor among others that will be considered when we consult on possible abolition of the offence of defamatory libel in due course.
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will review the common law offence of criminal libel in order to ensure its compatibility with the principles of legal certainty and proportionality required by Article 10(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights to justify interference with the right to freedom of expression. [HL3289]
The offence of criminal libel is not in our view, in itself, incompatible with the right to freedom of expression. Depending on the circumstances, one or more of the exceptions in Article 10.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights may justify any interference with that right.