Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke has unveiled a raft of new proposals to reform libel law in England and Wales and bolster freedom of speech.

The draft Defamation Bill sets out a number of changes to current defamation laws, including a requirement for claimaints to demonstrate 'substantial harm' before a claim can be pursued.

With regards to the much-touted issue of libel tourism, the bill proposes that defamation against a person who is not based in the UK can now only be heard in domestic courts if it is "clearly the most appropriate place".

The bill also includes a new 'single publication' rule that will only allow a defamation claim to be brought against the first publication of a statement, marking a change from existing laws which allow a fresh claim every time the statement is repeated. This will only be challenged if subsequent publications are "materially different" from the initial statement.

Reynolds Porter Chamberlain partner and defamation specialist David Hooper commented: "The Bill proposes some radical changes that substantially redress the balance towards freedom of speech. I welcome it as a real attempt to bring libel law into the 21st century."

However, some have suggested that the requirement to demonstrate "substantial harm" could lead to increased costs for claimaints.

Carter-Ruck litigation partner Nigel Tait commented: "Libel law has more than its fair share of critics and what draws them out is the issue of cost, and I'm afraid this bill has higher costs written all over it.

"Defamation suits will become even more expensive and fewer claimants will be able to afford it. Defendants such as bloggers and scientists could well be in an even worse position because even if they make use of these reforms and win they may well be unable to recover their costs or find 'no win, no fee' lawyers willing to represent them."

Berwin Leighton Paisner media partner Ian De Freitas added: "Unsurprisingly it definitely comes down in favour of freedom of expression. But actually I think this is going too far the other way. I'm concerned about how to demonstrate substantial harm. There's going to be a huge raft of cases arguing what that exactly means and we won't know for several years."

A number of new proposals have been put forward for use by defendants, including the defence of 'public interest, while 'honest opinion' is set to replace the current defence of 'fair comment'.

The Bill also proposes a move away from jury trials, with non-jury trials now presumed unless the court has ordered otherwise.

Clarke (pictured) said: "The right to speak freely and debate issues without fear of censure is a vital cornerstone of a democratic society. In recent years the increased threat of costly libel actions has begun to have a chilling effect on scientific and academic debate, and investigative journalism.

"This bill will ensure that anyone who makes a statement of fact or expresses an honest opinion can do so with confidence. However, it is never acceptable to harm someone's reputation without just cause, so the Bill will ensure defamation law continues to balance the needs of both sides and encourage a just outcome in libel cases."

The Bill relates solely to the law in England and Wales.

The news follows proposals outlined by Lord Justice Jackson last year to shake up civil litigation and move away from the UK's so-called "compensation culture". The proposals include abolishing the recoverability of success fees and associated costs in 'no win, no fee' deals.

Click here for the draft Defamation Bill and click here to respond to the MoJ's consultation.

More reaction to the proposals

"Claimant lawyers will be dancing in the streets. The bill if enacted is going to result in considerable pre-trial litigation as the court is asked to consider whether the harm caused by the publication has been substantial, whether a subsequent publication is materially different to an earlier version. The end of jury trials as the norm is of deep concern. The value of a jury was shown in Desmond v Bower – without their sense of realism Richard Desmond would have succeeded before Eady J. It might be cheaper to lose juries but at what cost to justice?"
Anna Doble, legal director, Wiggin

"It was presented by Nick Clegg as a wholesale 'reform' of libel law, but if you actually look at the draft bill there is not a lot there that isn't just a restatement of the current common law position. Having said that, it will make life easier for media defendants – newspaper lawyers will be pleased with quite a lot of it. Whatever changes come out of this, policy makers will have to be careful that they don't in practice deny access to justice to ordinary people libelled by the media."
David Engel, head of media and defamation, Addleshaw Goddard

"Libel reformers are likely to be disappointed by the relative conservatism of the Bill and, in particular, by the watering down of the responsible publication defence and the failure, at least so far, to address the question of whether corporate claimants should be allowed to sue. It is disappointing that the government has chosen to replace the multiple publication rule, found not to be inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights, with a single publication rule. The attempt to legislate away 'libel tourism', while unsurprising, reflects an unwillingness to recognise the fact that there is virtually no evidence that it exists."
Alastair Mullis, professor and law school head, University of East Anglia

"Defamation is very complex and a quick fix is not possible. The real danger with this Bill is that it raises more questions than it answers. Whilst overall the Bill is good, its structure is such that costs to claimants will be increased significantly. As things stand today, defamation laws work pretty well. The Bill may as well have come with the caption 'Sponsored by the media', and understandably so, as media organisations have been suffering with the huge costs of dealing with litigation. However, the truth is that this Bill tends to favour media organisations whilst not doing enough to protect the defamed."
Rod Dadak, head of defamation, Lewis Silkin