My Lords, it may be a response to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to say that while there is of course a distinction between what is defamatory and what is illegal, it is not necessarily for the complainant to dictate why it is illegal. Thought might perhaps be given to making a regulation under Clause 5(3)(c) that put on the operator who sought to invoke this defence the need to say why, notwithstanding that the statement was defamatory, it was none the less lawful to publish it. That might be a better way of achieving the balance than putting, as other noble Lords have recognised, the often financially onerous burden on the complainant to anticipate and meet in advance the several defences that may or may not be urged as justification for the publication.
Defamation Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 15 January 2013.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Defamation Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
742 c220GC 
Session
2012-13
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2015-03-26 19:26:25 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-01-15/13011578000118
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-01-15/13011578000118
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-01-15/13011578000118