Libel tourists make mockery of English legal system

It has been pretty obvious for years that our libel laws are the laughing stock of the world... well perhaps not a laughing stock, more like a gravy boat (like a gravy train but slower). A ludicrous case in point was the way child rapist Roman Polanski used the British law courts to sue
American magazine Vanity Fair in 2005. The piece of human excrement was not prepared to come to the UK in person, naturally fearing his extradition to the US if he did, but he still was able to give evidence by video link. He won his case. Fair enough, but why didn’t he sue in France? Or perhaps French law in that case was not idiotic enough to entertain the case.

But I digress, Polanski was not the reason for this post, even if he and his parasites (err lawyers) did take advantage of our legal system. It was an article in today’s Sunday Times which gives some examples of how ridiculous our libel laws are.

To pursue a libel case in England plaintiffs need only prove that they have a reputation to defend in Britain and that the defamatory material was circulated here, even if only over the internet, to sue. They do not have to be resident here and the publication or individual they are suing need have only tenuous connections with the UK.

As a result John Mardas, a Greek citizen and former associate of the Beatles, is fighting a case in the British courts against The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune over articles that he claims falsely represented him as a charlatan.
(According to his Wikipedia article Mardas, who was given the job of building the Apple Studio for the Beatles, failed to live up to his promises of new inventions, which also included electric paint, wallpaper loudspeakers, a flying saucer, and a "sonic force field". .. I am not sure if that makes him a charlatan but it does make him a bullshitter in my view!)

Just 31 people read the relevant articles on the internet in England. The New York Times only sold 177 copies of its newspaper with the disputed article in England, while it was not published in the International Herald Tribune in this country, according to the defendants.

Despite this meagre readership, Mr Justice Eady, the libel judge, gave the go-ahead on appeal for a case which could rack up millions of pounds in costs. He said Mardas, who was known as “Magic Alex” in the 1960s, had a reputation (not one of a bullshitter, I presume) to defend in Britain, even though he lives in Greece. Mardas is not taking action against the papers in the United States.

Rachid Ghannouchi, a Tunisian opposition leader who has asylum in Britain. He successfully sued the German newspaper Die Zeit and the Dubai-based television station Al-Arabiya in London. According to the article another case involving Ghannouchi his lawyers Carter-Ruck (why am I not surprised that this bunch of parasitic scumbags would be mentioned in this article?), his lawyers, billed the unsuccessful defendant, a London-based Arab newspaper, for £1.3m in fees, including a “success” fee of £500,000, with £111,000 costs for translation from Arabic. (It’s clear to see who the real beneficiaries of our libel laws are!)

Perhaps the most outrageous element of all was the use of a British diplomat to serve papers on Icelandic professor, Hannes Gissurarson.

Gissurarson gave a speech to a group of journalists in Iceland in 1999 in which he made disparaging remarks about an Icelandic businessman. Extracts of his talk in English were put on the University of Iceland’s website. The businessman, Jon Olafsson, who moved to England in 2003, filed a claim against Gissurarson in the High Court, alleging that his reputation in Britain had been harmed.

Simon Minshull, then the deputy head of mission and consul at the British embassy in Iceland, was dispatched to serve papers on Gissurarson in September 2004. Damages for £55,000 were awarded against Gissurarson, but he fought back, successfully claiming that the libel writ was invalid because Minshull had not obtained his signature when serving the papers.

The case descended into a costly legal farce as Olafsson in turn sued the Foreign Office for this apparent blunder. He won his case last month, with the department being ordered to pay more than £90,000 compensation to Olafsson and the legal bill for the entire case, which could exceed £300,000.

Heimir Orn Herbertsson, Gissurarson’s lawyer, said: “The allegations only ever appeared on a website in Iceland. Professor Gissurarson could never afford to defend this case on its merits because of the huge legal costs in Britain.”

And so on and so forth... Perhaps the most worrying aspect of this travesty is not that greedy scum use our courts to gain redress but that it is used to stifle the work of human rights and anti-corruption organisations who are routinely threatened with London libel actions. Media lawyer Mark Stephens, who has acted for the defendant in many libel actions, said: “NGOs and reporting organisations know even if they are right they may still be sued and the cost of defending themselves will be huge. We have threats against just about every reputable organisation you can think of, from Human Rights Watch to Greenpeace.”

Jo Glanville, editor of Index on Censorship, which has been reviewing the libel laws with English Pen, which promotes literature and human rights, said: “The libel courts are a casino and costs must be capped to ensure they are no longer used to threaten free speech.”

Needless to say the current situation is an utter disgrace. Roman Polanski should have been told to *uck off and pursue his claim in person in the US or through the French courts. Mardas, should have been told to f*ck and pursue his claim in Greece or the US. The man was clearly a bullshitter in the 60s so what reputation he had to defend in the UK is hard to see. More on Ghannouchi anon but he can fuc* off too.

All our libel laws seem to do is line the pockets of shysters like Carter Ruck, people who would be far better employed in useful social work like sweeping the streets rather than lining their overstuffed pockets with more dirty money.