European Law Reported Badly: Film at 11
Feb. 16th, 2005 12:24 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
major_clangerThe trouble with learning about law - or any inherently complex subject - is that you become much more sensitive to the blithe ignorance with which it is reported.
Take today's news on the McLibel case. The BBC report is actually a pretty good summary of the situation, but the stories linked to in the 'from other news sources' section on the BBC page are quite another matter.
No, this does not overturn the judgment in either the original libel case or the Court of Appeal hearing.
No, this does not mean that there will be a re-hearing of the case.
Specifically, the ECtHR* does not sit as some sort of higher-level appellate court above the English or other national courts. Rather, it looks to see if the way in which the law was applied contravened the European Convention on Human Rights, and awards compensation to the claimants if it does. It can't overturn verdicts or change law, although in almost all cases where a national government loses a case, it amends its law accordingly.
(*Which is not the same as the European Court of Justice, which is an EU institution that deals with the interpretation of EU legislation. The ECtHR isn't even an EU body; its membership is separate from, and much wider than, the EU.)
No, this does not mean that Steel and Morris will be repaid the damages awarded against them; for starters, said damages were never paid, and McDonald's are now out of time to claim them without going back to court again.
It may result in a change of policy regarding the provision of legal aid in libel cases. But recent changes in the law had opened this door already, although on the other hand the whole legal aid system is creaking so badly at the seams that it's becoming progressively harder for anyone to get it, irrespective of the nature of their case.
Now, if only we could get US news sites to understand all this. Or even read the judgment before reporting on it...
MC
Take today's news on the McLibel case. The BBC report is actually a pretty good summary of the situation, but the stories linked to in the 'from other news sources' section on the BBC page are quite another matter.
No, this does not overturn the judgment in either the original libel case or the Court of Appeal hearing.
No, this does not mean that there will be a re-hearing of the case.
Specifically, the ECtHR* does not sit as some sort of higher-level appellate court above the English or other national courts. Rather, it looks to see if the way in which the law was applied contravened the European Convention on Human Rights, and awards compensation to the claimants if it does. It can't overturn verdicts or change law, although in almost all cases where a national government loses a case, it amends its law accordingly.
(*Which is not the same as the European Court of Justice, which is an EU institution that deals with the interpretation of EU legislation. The ECtHR isn't even an EU body; its membership is separate from, and much wider than, the EU.)
No, this does not mean that Steel and Morris will be repaid the damages awarded against them; for starters, said damages were never paid, and McDonald's are now out of time to claim them without going back to court again.
It may result in a change of policy regarding the provision of legal aid in libel cases. But recent changes in the law had opened this door already, although on the other hand the whole legal aid system is creaking so badly at the seams that it's becoming progressively harder for anyone to get it, irrespective of the nature of their case.
Now, if only we could get US news sites to understand all this. Or even read the judgment before reporting on it...
MC
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-02-16 10:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-16 12:14 pm (UTC)