|
Brits lack of free press protects saudis reputation { May 22 2004 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B06E2D81E3FF931A15756C0A9629C8B63http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B06E2D81E3FF931A15756C0A9629C8B63
May 22, 2004
Are Saudis Using British Libel Law To Deter Critics?
By SARAH LYALL
''House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties'' (Scribner), Craig Unger's book about the tangled connections between President Bush and his circle and Saudi Arabia's royal family, became a best seller in the United States this spring, and is now being published in Germany, Spain and Brazil, among other places.
But it is not for sale in Britain.
Earlier this year, Mr. Unger's book became the latest casualty of Britain's tough libel laws when his British publisher, Secker & Warburg, canceled publication, saying that it was afraid of being sued. British publishing has long been notoriously hamstrung by the country's libel laws, which place the burden of proof on the defendant and often make it prohibitively difficult for authors to win their cases if they are sued. But what is causing particular consternation in publishing and legal circles now is that Mr. Unger's case may be yet another example of how wealthy Saudis are increasingly using British laws to intimidate critics.
''Some Saudis appear to be using the U.K. as a back door to silence their critics and repress free speech by threatening litigation, persuading publishers to back down rather then face years of expensive litigation -- even if what they're publishing might in fact be true,'' said Trevor Asserson, who specializes in defamation in the London law office of Morgan Lewis & Bockius.
One of Mr. Asserson's clients, Rachel Ehrenfeld, had a British deal to distribute her new book, ''Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It'' (Bonus Books), canceled because of a legal threat by one of the Saudis she wrote about. Mr. Asserson declined to reveal who that person was.
In the mid-1990's, Charles Glass, an ABC reporter who spent a decade as the network's chief Middle East correspondent, tried to interest British publishers in a book about Saudi Arabia and the corrupting influence of its royal family, but was turned down on libel grounds. ''One publisher called me later, very embarrassed, and said that the legal people would not take the risk,'' Mr. Glass said in an interview.
With Mr. Unger's book, the publishers admitted they were worried about a possible lawsuit from one of the deep-pocketed Saudis who were mentioned, even though none explicitly made such threats.
Lawyers say these plaintiffs are doing what is called in the libel business ''forum shopping'' -- bringing their cases in Britain because they know they will be unlikely to win in the United States or other more media-friendly jurisdictions. That is not the case, say lawyers who have represented Saudis.
Regardless, the Saudis have had good results lately in British courts. Several months ago, the High Court ruled against the European edition of The Wall Street Journal in a case involving a 2002 article reporting that Saudi authorities were monitoring some 150 bank accounts for possible links to terrorism.
Two of the suspect accounts, The Journal reported, were maintained by Mohammed Jameel, a prominent Saudi businessman, based in Jedda. Mr. Jameel sued and won.
Less than a month later, The Mail on Sunday, in London, settled a libel case with another Saudi businessman, Khalid bin Mahfouz, whom it had accused in a 2002 article of helping finance terrorist activities. The newspaper agreed not only to print an abject apology saying that most of the claims in its article were completely wrong, but also to pay a substantial sum to a charity chosen by Mr. Bin Mahfouz.
''Mr. Bin Mahfouz is a well-known libel plaintiff in Britain -- he has successfully concluded two libel suits in recent years and is currently involved in two more -- and is mentioned in Mr. Unger's book, among a host of other people. Official allegations against him are well known. In Oct. 2001, for instance, the United States Treasury Department described a charity controlled by him as ''an Al Qaeda front that receives funding from wealthy Saudi businessmen.'' Mr. Bin Mahfouz's litigiousness is seen by people familiar with the discussions around Mr. Unger's book as a chief reason why Secker & Warburg decided not to publish it.
In an interview, Mr. Unger mentioned Mr. Bin Mahfouz as someone whose tendency to sue may have had a chilling effect on Secker & Warburg, but he defended his reporting. ''It's not as if I'm going after Mr. Bin Mahfouz in any particular way,'' Mr. Unger said. ''There are specific allegations that have been made against him by the American authorities.''
Laurence Harris, a partner at Kendall Freeman, which represents Mr. Bin Mahfouz in Britain, said that his client had sued in British courts because of his ties to the country. ''There is a substantial connection between my client and his family and this country,'' Mr. Harris said. ''They have homes and businesses here, and their reputation is very important to them.''
He rejected claims that Mr. Bin Mahfouz was opportunistically taking advantage of the British libel laws. ''It's wrong to categorize my client as someone who's lying in wait for any unsuspecting publisher to slip his name into a book so he can sue,'' Mr. Harris said. ''But it's perfectly true that we've been active here in making sure that when people write things that aren't fair, we've worked to get them corrected or to bring legal proceedings.''
He also said that Mr. Bin Mahfouz had never threatened to sue Mr. Unger and that ''House of Saud,'' in fact, quotes Cherif Sedky, Mr. Bin Mahfouz's chief legal adviser, at length as denying any connection to terrorism. ''The publications we've brought proceedings against are all ones where we were not consulted before publication,'' he said.
In an interview, Simon Master, deputy chairman of Random House U.K., which owns Secker & Warburg, said that no one had actively threatened to sue, but that past experience had convinced the publisher's lawyers that a lawsuit was almost inevitable. Such a suit would be long and expensive and not worth it, as good a book as ''House of Bush'' is, Mr. Master said.
Several other publishers have since expressed interest in ''House of Bush, House of Saud,'' said Elizabeth Sheinkman, Mr. Unger's agent, but at least two have decided against publishing on the advice of their own legal departments.
Toby Mundy, the managing director of Atlantic Books in Britain, said that he had seriously considered taking on the book, protecting the company by setting up a separate legal entity solely to publish ''House of Bush.'' Reluctantly, he said, he had to abandon the plan as too expensive and risky.
''Could the publisher be confident,'' he said, ''that any of Unger's sources, which include former C.I.A. operatives and State Department officials, would come to a British court and back up the book? No. Second, there's the very nearly impossible probability of proving that there is a connection between members of the very large Saudi royal family and terrorist activities.''
Libel laws in the United States and Britain are almost mirror images. In the United States, the person bringing the case has to prove not only that what was reported was false, but also that the publisher was at fault. In Britain, the burden falls the other way. The published statements are presumed to be false, and to win, the defendant has to prove that what was said is true.
This is an almost impossible burden for newspapers and publishers to meet, particularly when the assertions involve serious claims and the plaintiffs are rich. Famous foreign litigants in the past have included the flamboyant entertainer Liberace, who sued The Daily Mirror and won after it reported that he was gay, and the Russian businessman Boris Berezovsky, who successfully sued Forbes magazine here over allegations about underworld connections.
People accused of having ties to Irish Republican terrorism used to sue quite readily, and quite successfully, because witnesses were so unwilling to come forward, said Martin Soames, a media litigation lawyer at the British firm DLA. ''You wouldn't get a line of men in balaclavas saying, 'Yes, I was with him when he planted the bomb,' '' he said. The same holds true for the Saudis, he added. ''The hot allegation at the moment is the connection to Al Qaeda funding,'' he said.
Mr. Unger said he was not angry at his erstwhile British publisher, but rather unnerved by his crash course in British libel law. ''It makes you love the First Amendment all the more,'' he said. ''It's rather shocking what we take for granted as journalists in the United States, and what you cannot say in England.''
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
|
|
