MLAs want it to be easy to sue for libel, yet protect themselves

This means, in essence, that MLAs want it to remain relatively easy for an individual to bring a defamation action. Yet on the mainland, amid clear evidence that Britain was becoming a libel capital for bullying and wealthy (and sometimes criminal) litigants, the law has been tightened to ensure, among other things, that a plaintiff must have suffered serious harm before they can bring an action.

A culture of excessive libel claims means, for example, that a small newspaper that makes a minor mistake in good faith, due to the constraints of time and space that are part of the daily grind of newspaper production, operates in fear of a ruinous libel action. Such a media outlet might settle a case if there is any significant prospect of losing in the libel courts.

This has emboldened some Northern Ireland politicians, among whom are some of the most thin-skinned elected representatives in the UK, who threaten legal proceedings in circumstances where they would be laughed out of court if they even contemplated such a course of action in London.

Robust comments about politicians that are part of the cut and thrust of politics at Westminster are treated by Ulster politicians as if they are libellous. Yet if those same politicians libel someone else, they expect the taxpayer to pay for it.

Today we report on how an unnamed MLA used publicly-funded libel insurance to settle after being sued. If such cover is provided by the state for politicians (and it is far from clear it should be, given that they are – rightly – fully protected under a principle known as privilege for comments they make in an elected chamber), then we must at least be told who has availed of it. And it must be accompanied by libel reform.

People must have the right to defend their reputation. But organisations and individuals must also be free to discuss matters of public interest freely without fear that minor errors will trigger vast legal bills.