Why Cameron didn't legally react to 'piggate'

Putting aside a legal analysis ?of a nascent claim, including the availability of defences of truth or publication in a matter of public interest, there are a number of reasons why one may prefer to allow a legal wrong to go uncorrected than to seek vindication through proceedings.

Many libel trials relate to matters of public interest and therefore attract intense media scrutiny: 24-hour viral news repeats the underlying defamatory statement, which amplifies the harm caused by the offending publication. Scrutiny may also bring unwelcome inquiries, such as questions over the basis on which an unelected peer arrived at the belief that substantial financial contributions would secure him a cabinet position.  

Prospective claimants will ?also be alive to the dangers of examining an unfriendly witness, such as Lord Ashcroft, who has admitted to having ‘personal beef’ with Cameron. By giving a witness a public platform to grind the axe, the initial harm is often revived, if not aggravated. 

In light of such dangers, Cameron, no doubt ably assisted by PR experts and spin doctors, and safe in the knowledge that his personal media cycle only lasts days, was well advised not to bring proceedings. By using his media platform to pronounce his firm denial, and by refusing to give oxygen to the allegation (and Lord Ashcroft’s book sales), he has side-stepped a potential legal and PR miscalculation.

So, when should an individual bring a defamation claim? ?A proper analysis will no doubt require lawyers and PR firms ?to work together to determine whether the potential benefits outweigh the inherent risks ?of litigating libel claims. ?For individual claimants, the ongoing harm arising from the uncorrected wrong can have such a cumulative effect on ?both personal and professional relationships that they can only be salvaged by bringing legal proceedings, irrespective of the potential risk and cost. Individuals are often more driven by the non-pecuniary award of a judgment or apology that vindicates their reputation than financial damages. 

In the event that an individual decides to launch a libel claim, they should take heed of the recent Lachaux v AOL  judgment, which states a claimant must now prove  serious reputational harm has been caused by, or is likely ?to result from, the publication ?of the defamatory statement. ?In assessing such harm, the ?court will look at the gravity ?of the allegation and the extent of its circulation. Claimants now face the tougher obstacle of demonstrating serious harm within the one-year limitation for claims. It remains to be seen if this evidential burden will result in a decrease in defamation claims, particularly now that such harm can be deemed mitigated by ?the retraction or apology after the event.

Michael Frost is a solicitor in the media team at Hamlins @HamlinsLLP www.hamlins.co.uk