JURIES should continue to assess damages in libel cases but they should be clearly instructed by the judge on the criteria for their decision, according to the commission report.
The report did not recommend scrapping juries for the assessment of libel damages in the High Court.
However, it did recommend that a judge should direct the jury on the range and method of assessing damages and the material considerations on the facts of the particular case".
It also recommends that an apology should not be deemed an admission of liability. "It is the belief of a number of newspapers that the making of an apology is taken by courts as an admission of liability and that accordingly, in cases where liability may be in dispute, they are reluctant, to print apologies at any stage.
The commission said it was clear that making an apology was a matter which may be considered in the mitigation of damages.
The main emphasis of many submissions to the commission had been on inadvertent libel, mostly where people were wrongly identified in court proceedings. "The commission is satisfied that there is a need for substantial changes in the libel laws to meet this problem."
In such cases, newspapers were forced to not only print a full and adequate correction, but also to pay out large damages rather than risk an expensive libel action.
The commission recommends that a person libelled inadvertently should not be entitled to damages if there is no proof that he or she had lost or was likely to lose money as a result. Such a person would be entitled to a full retraction or correction.
Short limits should be put on the length of time between the publication of the defamatory matter and when a person seeks a retraction or correction. The newspaper should also be obliged to make that retraction within a short time limit.
A statutory definition of defamation should include the criteria that a defamatory statement must be false, and must "injure or tend to injure the reputation of the person involved".
On the question of newspapers, making a payment into court for compensation, the commission recommended that this should be allowed. But a plaintiff who accepts such a payment should be entitled to an order made in public by the court indicating the amount, the form of the defence, and the nature of the defamation.
"Such a condition would in the view of the commission ameliorate to a considerable extent the disadvantage from the plaintiff's point of view of a defendant's right to make a lodgement without an admission of liability."
The definition of public meetings in the 1961 Defamation Act should be widened to include situations like press conferences and proceedings in courts set up since the Act. And the time limit of six years for libel actions should be substantially reduced.
"It is the view of the commission that changes in the libel laws, which would include the recommendations made by it, are a matter of considerable urgency."
