Who he??

Remember Leveson?  Possibly not - it's been a few years now since the Lord Justice of that name was appointed as chairman of an inquiry into the behaviour of the press. His report suggested that newspapers should either sign up to a government controlled code of conduct or suffer heavily in costs if they are taken to court as a result of what they publish.  It seems to me that costs are indeed the fundamental problem here - the court costs in a defamation case can be so huge that they become a major determining factor in deciding whether to sue or whether to defend. I have always thought that in such cases the rule should be that each side bears thier own costs, whatever the outcome.  This puts each side in control of their own financial position and prevents one side being able to blackmail the other with the threat of an enormous bill of costs.  It seems to me that the only losers would be the lawyers - and I'm all for that!