Jack Straw is to examine the “chilling” menace of internet libel which makes newspapers liable to legal action every time an article is downloaded from their websites.

The move by the Justice Secretary comes as the European Court of Human Rights yesterday dismissed a test challenge brought by Times Newspapers.

The Strasbourg-based court ruled in two appeals brought by the newspaper that there had been no breach of article ten which protects freedom of expression.

But it did indicate the need for some time restraints to stop people endlessly being able to bring libel actions, possibly years after an article is published, just by downloading it.

The judges said: “While an aggrieved applicant must be afforded a real opportunity to vindicate his right to reputation, libel proceedings brought against a newspaper after a significant lapse of time may well, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, give rise to a disproportionate interference with press freedom under article 10.”

The Times had argued that the present law, which enables a new libel suit to be lodged every time material is downloaded from the internet - even years after its original publication in the newspaper - was “an unjustifiable and disproportionate restriction on its right to freedom of expression.”

The Ministry of Justice is shortly to issue a consultation on the whole issue of defamation and the internet.

Ysterday Maddie Mogford, media lawyer with Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, who acted for The Times, said that as a result of the ruling, “online publishers remain at risk of libel actions over stories posted more than 12 months ago,.”

That was despite the one-year time limit in which libel actions must be brought over printed articles, she said.

“It is a great pity that at a time when electronic publication is so prevalent and it seems that electronic archives will overtake physical paper ones, the court did not take the opportunity to review the application of archaic law to new media.”

Lord Pannick, QC, a leading human rights lawyer, said: “It is unfortunate that the European Court did not decide the issue of considerable importance and concern for freedom of expression. The internet publication rule - allowing actions for libel whenever an internet site is accessed, however old the material – is an unjustifiable restriction on free speech.”

But he added: “Times Newspapers, and all who value free speech, can take considerable comfort from the fact that the European Court strongly suggested that it would strike down the internet rule if a case involving “a significant lapse of time” were to arise.”

The test challenge arose over two articls concerning the Russian-born businessman, Grigori Lutchansky: the first, published in September 1999, headlined “second Russian Link to Money Laundering”; and the second, in October 1999, headlined “Trader linked to mafia boss, wife claims.”

Each article was posed on the newspaper webste on the day it was published in the newspaper.

In December 1999 Mr Loutchansky brought libel proceedings over the two articles. The newspaper acceped they were defamatory but relied on the defence of qualified privilege, arguing that they were of such a kind and seriousness that they had a duty to publish, and the public a right to know.

While the proceedings were ongoing the articles remained on the newspaper’s webste and in December 2000 Mr Loutchanksy lodged fresh libel proceedings over the internet publication.

Mr Loutchansky won his action but the newspaper appealed the High Court ruling over “single publication,” arguing that articles are only actionable when first posted on the internet.

AT the heart of the issue is a Victorian case dating back to 1849, involving the Duke of Brunswick, which said that each publication is a new publication.

In the internet age, that means each hit on a website, Times Newspapers argued, enabling peole to sue for libel well beyond the usual one-year limitation period.

In one recent such case, a loan orboker had lent a couple a sum of money which spiralled into a massive debt. The broker was subsequently investigated but his licence not revoked, so four years later he complained about the piece on The Times archive.

The newspaper has had to remove the piece but the journalists in question have now left and it is too late now to attempt to mount a defence of the article.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure