Page 74 - Law and the Media
P. 74
Blasphemy, Seditious Libel and Criminal Libel
2.3.2 The mental element
Seditious intent is more difficult to establish than seditious content. It is not enough that the
accused acted in a seditious way. He must have seditious purpose. The law does not inhibit
serious and honest criticism of the law, the government or the sovereign even where the
words used are forceful or extreme. There ‘must be violence or resistance or defiance for the
purpose of disturbing constituted authority’ (see R v Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary
Magistrate ex parte Choudhury).
The accused will avoid conviction if he is able to prove that, although technically responsible
for the publication, for example a printer or distributor, he was unaware that the contents
were seditious and had no reason to suspect they were.
Newspaper reports of parliamentary proceedings and judicial proceedings are privileged
against prosecution providing they are fair and accurate.
2.3.3 Penalties
The convicted publisher of a seditious libel faces a maximum penalty of a fine or (in theory)
life imprisonment and a fine.
2.3.4 Recent prosecutions
Prosecutions for seditious libel are extremely rare. In R v Aldred (1909) the defendant
published statements, aimed at Indian students, which preached the message that political
assassination in the cause of Indian independence was not murder. It was held to be a
seditious libel. The last prosecution for seditious libel took place over 50 years ago.
2.4 Criminal libel
Criminal libel prosecutions are rare but still possible. The origin of criminal libel appears to
lie in the thirteenth century public offence of ‘Scandalum Magnatum’. The objective of this
law was to prevent the uttering and dissemination of stories that tended to arouse the people
against their masters or cause a breach of the peace.
Despite the availability of the laws of defamation, a person may think it advantageous to
pursue his case for libel in the criminal courts instead of, or as well as, the civil courts. The
37