Bognor - whose case was buggered by the House of Lords in 1993.
It
is a principle of the common law of England and Wales that a public
authority cannot bring an action for defamation. And this is right and
proper, as being able to sue for libel (and thereby threaten to sue for
libel) would have an unwelcome "chilling" effect on public criticism of
governmental bodies. Individual councillors and officers can sue for
defamation, but not the authorities themselves.
However, this sensible legal safeguard appears to be under threat. The
City lawyers advising
Rutland County Council are saying that the recently enacted
Localism Act has changed the legal position, and now it is open to public bodies to freely sue - and threaten to sue - for libel.
Section 1 of the Localism Act provides for a "general power of competence". In particular, the Act says that a
"local authority has power to do anything that individuals generally may do".
It is not clear what this actually means, and the use of the imprecise word
"generally"
makes the scope of the provision inherently uncertain. But what the
external lawyers to Rutland County Council have taken it to mean is that
a council can sue for defamation when it could not do so before. And,
interestingly, it is three of Rutland Council's own councillors which
the council is considering whether to sue.
The advice of the lawyers is set out in full
here (pdf). The possibility of an action in defamation is set out at paragraph 11:
Some
20 years ago the Court of Appeal held that a local authority is not
entitled to issue a defamation claim in its own name in connection with
statements that damage the reputation of the authority as a whole
(rather than the reputation of its individual officers or members)4 and
this has been the accepted law. However, in our view, this principle
has been overturned by the general power of competence granted to local
authorities by section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 (“the 2011 Act”).
This provision was brought into force on 18 February 2012 and gives a
local authority the power to do anything which an individual generally
may do. An individual has the power to issue a defamation claim in its
own name, and the 2011 Act contains no restriction which would prevent
an authority from doing so. Given the extent to which a local authority
is now dependent on its public reputation for its ability to secure
external funding, to attract competitive tenders for provision of
services, or to recruit outstanding officers, it seems quite appropriate
that the 2011 Act should now have brought the law up to date with the
commercial reality.
However, this advice is not only illiberal, it seems misconceived.
First,
it was not the Court of Appeal which made the ruling which is referred
to, it was in fact the House of Lords. The case was
Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers
and it was a unanimous decision of five Law Lords - including Lord Goff
and Lord Browne-Wilkinson, two of the greatest common law judges of the
post-war era.
The Law Lords held that, as a matter of public
policy, Derbyshire County Council was not able to sue for defamation.
There would be, the Law Lords explained, an adverse effect on freedom of
expression if a public body could sue in respect of unwanted
criticism. The point could not have been made more clear:
"a local authority does not have the right to maintain an action of damages for defamation".
So
does section 1 of the Localism Act now "overturn" this unequivocal
statement of a very strong House of Lords? Are the external lawyers of
Rutland Council right?
With the proviso that law is ultimately
what the courts say it is, and so any view on what is an untested point
of law is a matter of opinion, it would appear that Rutland Council's
lawyers have got this important point badly wrong.
The Law Lords in
Derbyshire did not decide the case on what lawyers would call the
"vires" (or
powers) of a public body. It was instead decided on an altogether
different basis: that it should be public policy that councils cannot
sue. The Lordships did not doubt that corporations could, in principle,
sue for libel; it was just that a certain class of corporations were
not able to do so. The 1972 case which said otherwise -
Bognor Regis Urban District Council v. Campion - was expressly stated to have been wrongly decided. In effect, their Lordships said "
Bugger Bognor" and in a comprehensive review of domestic and foreign case law held that freedom of expression was always more important.
Accordingly, the Localism Act is irrelevant to the
Derbyshire decision.
It deals with a different legal issue. Section 1 does not create a
right of action in tort which the House of Lords said no longer
existed. Neither does it refer to public policy. In fact, it has
nothing to do with whether a council can sue for libel, and it is
worrying that a public authority is being advised that such a course of
action is available to it.
Rutland Council is clearly divided. A small group of councillors - "
the Rutland Anti-Corruption Party" - is noisily calling for transparency and openness in the council's dealings. Their
latest statement accuses the council of significant wrongdoing. This in turn is denied by the council, who
make counter accusations.
At a distance, it is difficult to form a view on the merits of any of
the accusations - and Rutland matters should, of course, be determined
by Rutland people.
But what makes the matter of wider concern is
the council's resort to legal advice on how to sue or otherwise legally
threaten its very own councillors. For if Rutland Council can sue its
critics for libel, then it would follow that any council would be able
to also do so, and it would be a brave citizen that would want to be a
test case in any action for libel. The 'chilling effect' will be enough
to deter certain criticism.
Rutland Council meets this evening to discuss the legal advice it has received. Anyone with an interest in free expression and
libel reform should
follow what now happens. For if the majority of councillors vote for
the council to sue for libel, then other councils will undoubtedly be
tempted to follow the lead of Rutland, and it could be as if the
Bognor case had never been buggered by their Lordships at all.
David Allen Green is legal correspondent of the New Statesman