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
   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79