Judges pressured on libel cases by public opinion, says Carter-Ruck lawyer

Judges may be pressured by public opinion during controversial libel cases, said Nigel Tait, a partner at law firm Carter-Ruck.

Speaking at last night's Frontline Club event on super-injunctions and defamation law, Tait said that judges "didn’t want to deal with" public pressure around controversial libel cases brought against journalists and publishers in the UK, particularly if they felt they were going to "get it in the neck".

Judges are well aware of public anger generated by controversial rulings, claimed Tait.

"The public makes a huge difference in the way judges apply case law," he added.

Also speaking at the event, Reynolds Porter Chamberlain partner David Hooper said judges were beginning to make more use of Article 10, which stipulates the right to freedom of expression to combat press censorship through court rulings. "Judges are beginning to say, 'we really should be thinking about Article 10' rather than giving it lip service," he said.

Speaking about his own ongoing legal battle against the British Chiropractic Association, science journalist Simon Singh said a "huge [public] movement" had influenced his recent victory in the Court of Appeal.

"The Court of Appeal had to decide if they could overrule [Justice Eady]. That tipped the balance – not the press, but pressure from the public," he said.

The Court ruled against the decision that Singh wrote as a matter of fact that the British Chiropractic Association was being consciously dishonest in its promotion of certain treatments. But Singh added that he had had to fight his case from a "defensive position" and that there was still an opportunity to reform libel laws more radically to combat censorship.

Free daily newsletter

If you like our news and feature articles, you can sign up to receive our free daily (Mon-Fri) email newsletter (mobile friendly).