Final answer:
The difference between British and USA libel suits mainly lies in the burden of proof, with the plaintiff bearing this responsibility in the US, while in the UK, it is the defendant's duty. The use of jury trials is more common and constitutionally protected in the US, while in the UK it is rare. Both jurisdictions, however, offer avenues for appeal.
Step-by-step explanation:
The primary difference between British and USA libel suits is the burden of proof. In the USA, the person who claims they were defamed must prove that the information was false, while in the UK, the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that the information was true or that it was a fair comment or privileged statement. Furthermore, in the US, public figures have to prove 'actual malice' - that is, the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. This standard was established by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of New York Times v. Sullivan.
The availability of a jury trial also differs. The Seventh Amendment of the US Constitution preserves the right to a jury trial in federal civil cases if the amount in controversy exceeds twenty dollars. Meanwhile, in England and Wales, libel cases are typically tried by a judge alone unless a specific application for a jury trial is made and granted, which is rare after the reform introduced by the Defamation Act 2013.
Regarding appeals, in both jurisdictions, there is a mechanism to challenge a court's decision, but the processes and grounds for appeal may vary substantially.