The Leveson Inquiry has featured regularly in the news since it began in November 2011; the phone-hacking scandal which triggered the Inquiry has been in our minds for much longer. The revelations have come thick and fast and the Inquiry has, at times, been challenging to watch, be it the emotional oral evidence submitted by the Dowler and the McCann families or the holding-no-punches approach taken by ex-News of the World investigative reporter Paul McMullan.
The testimony of Jim and Margaret Watson was particularly hard-hitting. Appearing before the Inquiry on 22 November 2011, they recalled the murder of their daughter Diane in 1991 at the hands of Barbara Glover. Glover was found guilty of the murder and was subsequently imprisoned. Following Diane Watson’s death, the Herald newspaper and Marie Clare magazine published a series of articles investigating young offenders and these articles, according to Mr and Mrs Watson, appeared to paint Glover as a ‘victim’ in the whole affair. Herald journalist Mr Jack McLean wrote articles which Mrs Watson argued labelled her family as coming from “an upper working class background and Diane had looked down on Barbara with disdain”. This claim caused the Watson family considerable upset, and they have refuted the claim, pointing to remarks made by the Judge presiding over the trial which rejected such motives for the murder. For Mr and Mrs Watson, these articles served to defame the memory of their daughter.
The issue of defamation and its effects upon the Watson family were not just connected to Diane. Following the publication of the defamatory articles, Diane’s younger brother Alan committed suicide. The Inquiry was told that cuttings of the articles in question were found by his body. The treatment of Diane’s memory since her death had had a profound and tragic effect upon the living. Mrs Watson told the inquiry: “Just because a person’s deceased you can write what you want, and they [the Herald and Marie Clare journalists] certainly did it”.
The evidence of Mr and Mrs Watson has not been the only evidence to raise issues over the rights of the dead. Ex-Daily Star journalist Richard Peppiatt delivered his oral evidence on 29 November 2011. He recalled the death of Kevin McGee, formally the ex-partner to actor and comedian Matt Lucas. Following an anonymous tip-off linking Mr McGee’s suicide to a costly drugs and alcohol binge, Mr Peppiatt took the story to the Daily Star news desk. They told him to write it up. Despite reservations about the veracity of both source and story, Mr Peppiatt wrote it up, and it was subsequently published on the front page of the paper. It was published unverified because, as Mr Peppiatt remarked, “There was certainly the consideration that the man was dead, therefore you can’t really libel him”. The Inquiry heard that with “McGee being dead, you can say pretty much what you want about him because he is dead”. Mr Peppiatt, who left the Daily Star prior to the Inquiry protesting against what he perceived to be its anti-Muslim propaganda agenda, apologised for the article saying, “I accept responsibility for the fact that nobody held a gun to my head and made me write that... hurtful story... I feel very ashamed.”
The testimony of the Watson family and Mr Peppiatt raises interesting questions about whether or not the dead should have rights. At present, one can write what they wish about the deceased, and this can cause considerable hurt to those left behind, especially when facts have not been properly investigated, have been misinterpreted or have just been fabricated to create a story. The Watson family are campaigning for a law against defaming the dead to be introduced, working with the Scottish Government. What effect would or could such a law have? Whilst it may act as a comfort to the bereaved, would it damage or limit the rights of our free press or the right to free speech?
The right to free speech will forever be enshrined in the words of Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym S.G. Tallentyre. In The Friends of Voltaire, she wrote, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Compared to the principle of the right to free speech, it seems appropriate to consider the Buddhist principle of Right Speech, one of the aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path. In A Very Short Introduction to Buddhism, Damien Keown simply defines Right Speech as “telling the truth and speaking in a thoughtful and sensitive way” (2000 edition, p55). The Pali Canon argues Right Speech to be “abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech and from idle chatter: This is called Right Speech”. As such, the Buddhist message is clear: take care in what you say, think before you speak. This is not just a Buddhist truth, this is a universal truth. When one looks at the current media situation and take into account the evidence presented by the Watson family and Mr Peppiatt, we witness a culture where only the living appear to be afforded the respect of Free Speech.
As the Leveson Inquiry continues to receive evidence concerning the culture and ethics of the press, the debate about the right to free speech versus the rights of the dead will continue. I am sure many will agree that the right to free speech is an essential, or indeed ‘the’ essential, component of British democracy yet if those living are guarded by anti-libel legislation, should the dead also be afforded the same rights? A death, after all, does not just affect the individual concerned, but the family and friends left behind. They will cling to a memory, a reminder of a presence now gone. One solution could be to introduce a libel law that allows families to ‘approve’ any article or story that concerns the deceased. How easy this would be to enforce, I cannot say. There are obvious objections to such a law, with some viewing it to be a form of media suppression. It may be the case that the love we have for the deceased would cloud our judgement, leading us to gloss over the negative (and potentially newsworthy) aspects of their characters which might be deemed to be in the public interest. Such people may not be protecting the memory of the dead; instead, they might only be protecting themselves from future media intrusion.
These questions will be considered by the Leveson Inquiry, and hopefully a solution or compromise can be reached. A system based on the Buddhist principle of Right Speech is more than likely too utopian to be a serious proposal, yet its ethos can still remain. At the very least, if any system is to be put in place, it probably should allow the press and various news outlets room to consider the consequences of their reports on the deceased without impinging upon press freedom. There could even be legal processes in force aiming to ensure greater accuracy. It will not bring the dead back to life, but will go some way to ease their passing and preserve their memory for those left behind.
As the main item states, it is a long-standing principle of English law that there is no legal remedy against defamation of the dead. There are good policy grounds for that. In my view allowing family members to sue for defamation of a deceased person would create scope for more vexatious litigation.
ReplyDeleteEven though it is sometimes painful for surviving relatives, as in this case, I believe that English law gets the balance right in this area. Tragedies such as the suicide of the brother should not lead us to rush into bad law changes.