Straw’s libel reforms are a start, at least.

Jack Straw’s new proposals for the reform of libel law are an encouraging start, but they are by no means conclusive.

There is a large focus on costs of defence. Whilst the astronomical costs of defending libel cases are of great importance, what about the burden of proof being with the defendant? That’s most certainly of equal importance.

The suggestions made by libelreform.org should be taken seriously into consideration by Straw.

However, I believe we also need to ensure that when libel is committed, not only are suitable damages paid (by suitable I mean genuinely reflective of financial loss and damage to reputation, not a gratuitous and vast sum), but a significant retraction is made in the publication which is guilty of libel. Having one small paragraph tucked away in a newspaper does not undo the damage done by a full-page article. There needs to be guidelines on corrections and their prominence within a newspaper or on a webpage. For example, libellous articles are removed from websites. There should be rules in place to ensure that a correction is permanently left in its place.