Web libel time limit

Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary said he will look at the statute of limitations for web libel under English law.

Answering questions at the Press Gazette media law conference, Mr Straw said he will have a good look at the precedent which effectively means there is no time limit on online libel.

Claimants who wish to sue for libel under English law normally have one year from the date of publication. However, a case from the 19th century established the precedent that if back issues containing a libel continue to be made available, publishers can be sued afresh.

This ruling has been extended to cover articles on the web. Even if it was first published several years ago, a web story is considered to be published anew every time someone downloads it. This means that stories contained in a web archive are actionable as long as they are available to view. The one year time limit only begins when an article is removed from the web.

News Group lawyer, Alistair Brett (who asked Mr Straw the question) pointed out that The Times has an archive going back to 1785, exposing it to potentially huge legal risk.

Press regulation blasted

The Press Compliants Commission does not maintain standards nor does it protect the freedom of the press according to a report on self-regulation by the Media Standards Trust.

The report, whose authors include senior journalists and lawyers, concludes that self-regulation can be effective but the PCC is just not doing a very good job.

The report suggests improving the PCC, including:

• It should be independent of the press (currently newspaper editors dominate)
• It should have the power to fine newspapers for transgressions
• It should monitor whether the press complies with its standards (currently it only deals with complaints)
• It should publish details of how it is funded

The report says the public trust in journalists is at an all-time low. According to a YouGov survey conducted in December for the report:

• 75% of the public agrees with the statement newspapers frequently publish stories they know are inaccurate
• 10% agrees with the statement we can trust newspaper editors to ensure that their journalists act in the public interest

Children in Need libel

The BBC has paid undisclosed damages to a Leeds community worker over allegations on Newsnight that money from Children in Need was passed to the 7 July bombers, Press Gazette reports.

Newsnight did not identify Hanif Malek who successfully sued. But his lawyer argued that some viewers would be able to identify him because of his connections with Leeds Community School which did feature in Newsnight's report.

This was a form of libel by innuendo. Only viewers with special knowledge would perceive the report as libellous but that is enough for a successful action.

Confusing heads

Recent headlines from the BBC news website succeed on brevity but fail on clarity.

Wife jailed over rap band killing

implies that she killed the band. In fact, she employed band members to kill her husband.

China firework bar blaze kills 15

suggests they have firework bars in China. Groovy. In fact, the blaze was caused by a firework set off in an ordinary Chinese bar.

The problem is caused by trying to squeeze two strands from a story into six words. Wife jailed for killing husband is a better single strand head, but a little mundane. Jail for wife who used rap band to kill husband gets the second, more interesting, strand into the head but now it is too long. Could be it is an impossible puzzle to solve?