My Lords, as I move this amendment I would like to highlight the fact that it is currently impossible to bring a defamation case in which the defamed person is deceased. I readily understand that this issue affects a wide range of people. I was not proposing to deal with the Hillsborough tragedy, but with the terrible circumstances which afflicted James and Margaret Watson. In presenting this argument, I am greatly assisted by my noble friend Lord Martin of Springburn, who, like me, has visited the Watson family’s home and heard at first hand the tragedies which affected them. A number of people before the Leveson inquiry have argued that anyone who is defamed can always have recourse to the law, and therefore that those grievously affected by misreporting or
misrepresentation of the facts of a particular case can always take civil defamation action. However, the Watson family feel very strongly that of course that does not apply in the circumstances of their case.
I anticipate that many people will know about this terrible tragedy. Without going into too much detail, on 10 April 1991 the Watsons’ daughter Diane—who was a conscientious, well-liked and much respected pupil at her school—was murdered, having been assaulted by the murderess the previous day. There was then what the Watson family regard as some serious misreporting of what had occurred, which in particular tarnished the reputation of their daughter in a way that caused them and their son, Alan, serious distress. Alan expressed his justifiable anger at the way his sister’s good name and reputation were unjustly damaged. It was being said by the murderess that the reason the murder was committed was that she had been bullied by the Watsons’ daughter. But Lord Justice McCluskey found very clearly that there was no evidence whatever to support that; Diane was a model pupil and not a bully. I have personally seen a letter in the Watsons’ flat from Lord Justice McCluskey, making it clear that that was his finding. Sadly, it was not observed. I realise that much of this case must result in a regulatory structure of the press which ensures that such misreporting can never take place again in the future.
4.45 pm
I know the Watson family have wanted more. That is why I moved this amendment. Tragically on 5 December 1992, their son, Alan, took his own life, holding the articles which had caused him such serious distress. Since then the family has been campaigning for the law to be changed so that there is legal redress for families of the deceased. I have personally seen the First Minister in Scotland, following the Scottish public petitions committee, allowing the Watsons to increase the scope of their petition to include the defamation of homicide victims. The First Minister assured me that this was under consideration in Scotland.
What the Watson family—James and Margaret—would like to know is whether or not the Minister, who is well aware of the circumstances of this case, can do anything to ensure that, in circumstances like those of this family, this can never occur again because it will be within the protection of the law that such deceased persons cannot be so seriously defamed.
I know that the Minister has not only already acquainted himself with the circumstances of this case but very kindly saw Mr and Mrs Watson on 19October 2010. Following that meeting, he said that he would examine the situation so far as the law was concerned in other countries and would give very careful thought as to the way in which the concerns of James and Margaret Watson could be taken further into an amendment of the law. This is why I beg to move Amendment 3A.