Damn lies revealed on internet

By Jonathan Forsey, Associate

First published in The Press, 23 April 2008

Is “anonymity” effective protection against internet based defamation claims?

Website administrators and bloggers, even those who go to extraordinary lengths to hide their identities, are not beyond the reach of the law, judging by the outcome of a recent UK case.

A record pay-out ordered by the UK High Court is based on legal principles that could apply in New Zealand and should sound a warning to those who rely on supposed anonymity to post offensive material online in chat groups and online campaigns.

In the biggest public pay-out in an internet defamation case in the UK, a website and associated newsletter under the name “Dads Place” was set up in 2004, ostensibly as a forum to allow disgruntled fathers to post comments about the Family Court process.

Before long, the site and its forums became a vehicle for the publication of a “malicious and relentless” online campaign against the activities of social housing company Gentoo Ltd (formerly the Sunderland Housing Group). In particular, it targettedGentoo’s chief executive, Peter Walls. In what was described by Gentoo’s lawyer as a “malicious, unpleasant and relentless campaign of libel and harassment” against Gentoo and various people associated with it, the site was used to level accusations that ranged “from corruption to nepotism and the promotion of female employees in exchange for sexual favours”. The allegations included paedophilia and drug dealing. Dads Place was taken down by its internet service provider in the summer of 2006, but only after it had been viewed millions of times.

Gentoo tried to find out the source of the material and amassed a wealth of evidence, a process which reportedly cost the company £300,000. It succeeded in obtaining injunctions and damages awards against the main administrator of the site and another person, who took an active role. But the most extraordinary thing was the discovery (initially denied) that the site and the attacks had been orchestrated by a rival housing firm, Pallion.

When the matter came to Court late last year, Mr John Finn, the owner of Pallion, changed his denial at hearing and admitted being largely responsible for the campaign.

With liability established, Pallion agreed to pay £125,000 towards Gentoo’s legal costs and a total of £21,000 in compensation. Just last month, Pallion agreed to pay Mr Walls damages of £100,000 to settle his claim for libel and harassment. This very substantial payment marks the highest public pay-out in an internet defamation case in the United Kingdom and reflects the fact that the publication was a continuous attack mounted over a sustained period.

Following the case, Mr Walls called for victims of internet abuse to have a quicker and more effective route to justice. Mr Walls’ success depended on him and his company being sufficiently well resourced and determined to carry out a huge amount of investigation to uncover the identities of people who wished to remain anonymous.

For many sufferers of internet abuse, the options available to them are often limited to complaints to internet service providers, which may or may not be heeded. It is difficult to see the area being the subject of specific regulation, but the case has led to calls in the UK for a voluntary code of conduct among internet service providers. Watch this space.

Location http://www.duncancotterill.com/index.cfm/1,159,449,0,html