MLRC London Conference Explores Developments in International Media Law

On September 19-20, over 190 delegates from around the world convened at Stationers’ Hall in London to discuss developments in libel, privacy, reporters privilege, newsgathering and related areas of media law.

This was MLRC’s fourth, and largest, conference in London – with delegates from Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Holland, New Zealand, Scotland, United States and Wales.

Day One

The conference opened with speech from Lord Justice Henry Brooke, of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, on the subject of “Reynolds and Responsible Journalism.” Lord Justice Brooke surveyed recent developments in the law of privilege, noting that the privilege is still evolving under UK law.

Laura Handman, Davis Wright Tremaine, and Mark Stephens, Finers Stephens Innocent, then led a session on Libel Law Developments that picked up the themes of Lord Justice Brooke’s speech. The session examined, in a practical way, how the Reynolds privilege is working in UK libel cases with comparisons to recent libel trials and issues in the U.S.  The Honorable Thomas Munro Gault, of the New Zealand Supreme Court, delivered a speech to the conference entitled “What Is the Editor to Do? - Constraints on the Freedom of Expression” – offering personal reflections on the prepublication decisions journalists must make to balance libel and privacy issues against the public’s interest in being informed.

Andrew Nicol QC, Doughty Street Chambers, and Charles Tobin, Holland & Knight LLP, led a discussion on developments in the law of reporters privilege – including  dvelopments and fallout from the Judith Miller case. Andrew Caldecott QC, 1 Brick Court, Sebastian Seelman-Eggebert, Latham & Watkins (Hamburg) and Cliff Sloan, The Washington Post Company led a session on privacy law developments, including a discussion of the impact of the Von Hannover v. Germany decision by the European Court of Human Rights on publishers worldwide.

Day Two

The second day of the conference began with a speech by Lord Justice Igor Judge on a new pilot program in England allowing cameras in courts on a limited basis. American Judge Hiller Zobel offered his perspective on the U.S. experience with cameras in courts. Alastair Brett, Times Newspapers Limited and Jonathan Sherman, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP led a group discussion on the subject.

The next session, led by John Battle, Independent Television News and Thomas Kelley, Faegre & Benson LLP, focused on the related subject of reporting on court proceedings – including contempt of court restrictions in the UK and other common law jurisdiction that restrict reporting on trials and other criminal proceedings.

The Honourable James Jacob Spigelman, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Australia delivered an afternoon speech entitled “The Principle of Open Justice.”  Judge Spigelman’s speech surveyed the concept of open justice in the English and Australian legal systems – with a comparison to U.S. access law developed out of cases such as Richmond Newspapers v Virginia.

David Bodney, Steptoe & Johnson LLP and Siobhain Butterworth, Guardian Newspapers Ltd., led an afternoon session focusing on the UK’s recently enacted FOIA statute, comparing the language and application of the statute to laws in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Day Two of the conference concluded with a mock jury session on the theme “Libel and Responsible Journalism” moderated by Michael Sullivan, Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, LLP. At issue was a mock newspaper story that republished allegations of misconduct against a high-profile athlete. Desmond Browne QC, 5RB, argued on behalf of the Claimant. Gavin Millar, QC, Doughty Street Chambers, argued on behalf of the Defendant. The jury deliberations were televised live to delegates. Jurors split 6-6 on whether the article was defamatory. But they tilted 9-3 in favor of the defendant, finding that the article was published responsibly. Jason Bloom, Courtroom Sciences Incorporated, Dallas, Texas, and Dave Heller coordinated the session with Michael Sullivan.

In-house Counsel Breakfast

Finally, a new session was included as part of the conference. Approximately 50 in-house lawyers from the UK, US and Australia met to discuss issues of particular concern, including retaining counsel and conflicts issues (i.e., “defense only” representation) and the rise in conditional fee agreements.

Links