Everything you always wanted to know about Defamation but were afraid to ask
In view of the discussion regarding defamation, it’s useful to have a little grounding on the subject.
What is defamation?
Defamation is the publication of an untrue statement which can negatively affect the reputation of the target. The target can be regarded with contempt, hated, ridiculed or avoided as a result of the statement. The burden of proof is on the CLAIMANT to establish that the publication is capable of affecting their reputation.
The Defamation Act 2013 introduced the requirement of serious harm to discourage trivial claims.
(1) A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.
(2) For the purposes of this section, harm to the reputation of a body that trades for profit is not “serious harm” unless it has caused or is likely to cause the body serious financial loss.
Defamation Act 2013
Defences
Truth
It is essential for a damaging statement to be false. If the statement is true and damages the target’s reputation, there is no cause of action even if the motive was malicious. The only exception is where the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 applies. ROA 1974 refers to spent convictions, and the defence of truth may not apply in those cases. The Defamation Act 2013 defines truth as follows:
(1) It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.Defamation Act 2013
It should be noted that, in general, malice is irrelevant to this defence, with the exception of spent convictions as noted above. If an individual refers to such a conviction with malice, the defence of truth is destroyed, even if the conviction exists.
Public interest
The idea behind this defence is to enable people to publish information on matters of public interest. Prior to the Defamation Act 2013, the protection was only available to journalists, although the defence of honest comment could be used by others. The conditions for this defence are:
- The statement must be in the public interest
- The person making the statement must have reason to believe the statement was in the public interest
Unlike the defence of truth, the defence of public interest is defeated by malice.
(1) It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that—(a) the statement complained of was, or formed part of, a statement on a matter of public interest; and
(b) the defendant reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest.
(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), in determining whether the defendant has shown the matters mentioned in subsection (1), the court must have regard to all the circumstances of the case.
(3) If the statement complained of was, or formed part of, an accurate and impartial account of a dispute to which the claimant was a party, the court must in determining whether it was reasonable for the defendant to believe that publishing the statement was in the public interest disregard any omission of the defendant to take steps to verify the truth of the imputation conveyed by it.
(4) In determining whether it was reasonable for the defendant to believe that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest, the court must make such allowance for editorial judgement as it considers appropriate.
(5) For the avoidance of doubt, the defence under this section may be relied upon irrespective of whether the statement complained of is a statement of fact or a statement of opinion. Defamation Act 2013
Honest opinion
Originally known as “fair comment”, this defence is available when a statement is based on an opinion and indicates the basis of that opinion. The defence applies when an honest person could have been considered to have held the opinion in view of an existing fact.
(1) It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the following conditions are met.(2) The first condition is that the statement complained of was a statement of opinion.
(3) The second condition is that the statement complained of indicated, whether in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion.
(4) The third condition is that an honest person could have held the opinion on the basis of—
(a) any fact which existed at the time the statement complained of was published;
(b) anything asserted to be a fact in a privileged statement published before the statement complained of. Defamation Act 2013
Operators of websites
The Defamation Act 2013 makes special provisions for operators of websites. This defence applies when people allow readers to post comments and the website operator is not the author of the comments posted.
(1) This section applies where an action for defamation is brought against the operator of a website in respect of a statement posted on the website.(2) It is a defence for the operator to show that it was not the operator who posted the statement on the website. Defamation Act 2013
Leave a Reply
37 Comments on "Everything you always wanted to know about Defamation but were afraid to ask"
Ok
Jason says:
The Silly Sod thinks any criticism of him is “defamatory” (or should it be “defamatious” as he recently said? PMSL!). He still doesn’t understand that a statement is only defamatory if it’s untrue.
Why is it every time someone exposes the truth about him, he starts making references to that individual’s personal circumstances such as their finances, housing situation, education, etc.? How would Jason know whether Gander can pay his rent or otherwise? And why is any of this relevant?
Furthermore, anyone who actually knows the first thing about Gander would also know the last thing he would do is post something defamatory, he would steer well clear of that. But you can hardly call it defamation when you have the documents to prove it!
A few hours later, he says this:
It looks like a typical case of transference, he is transferring what he himself does, onto someone else. Wasn’t that exactly what he did when he posted the above? Post someone’s real name, investigate him and his background and defaming him?
This is a clear example of defamation and being in the Philippines isn’t going to save you, Bennison. You of all people know full well that failure to respond to a claim gives the claimant the option to request judgment in default. In other words, YOU LOSE!
Just got back from our local and all is right with the world, well almost all.
Beautiful morning, suns shining, everything looks fresh and clean.
It’s cold but what would you expect i suppose. Thinking of getting the garden ready for planting, bit early maybe?
I am not a gardener i just tend to plant stuff when it says on the packet, but it feels like something should be going on.
Meanwhile underground the evil Morlocks go about their skulduggery in vain attempts to prolong their survival, LOL.
Highly defamatory comments from Mark Bowley today. It is truly frightening to watch how singlehandedly; he has trashed the Bailiff Help Forum and shown himself up to be a bad tempered and very bitter old man.
Before making such posts, do as I do, and observe the most basic rules of defamation. Make sure that what you post online is true.
Strange him extolling the virtues of jason as a caring family man. Is this the same person who decided to leave the country not having paid child maintenance and bragged about it to others. Seems Mark may have forgotten about that though.
If it had not been for Mark Bowley’s actions last evening, I would not be writing this post this morning.
What Mr Bowley wrote about Jason last evening is in sharp contrast to his private thoughts about him.
Behind his back, (and very, very recently indeed), Mark has been saying the most vile, nasty and downright libellous things about his good ‘friend’ Jason Bennison,
In relation to Jason’s Paralegal services, the warning from Mark Bowley is to steer well clear of him…and make sure that you do not pay him a penny.
So if I were you, I would take no notice about his online rants…..it’s what he is saying away from the forum that counts.
PS: Just remember that cardinal rule about defamation…post the truth.
Do you know something we don’t? Would you care to spill the beans?
I know a hell of a lot more but at this moment in time, debtor enquiries are more pressing.
Well I haven’t risen to him because at best he guessing and guess what he is wrong on each count. Not for me to correct him, why would I because it just causes more abuse. All I have said so far about his mate is true – after all he made sure he had told everyone about his situation only snag was it was all lies and if he did not know then he just made up. That is why I can say Jason is a Compulsive & Pathological Liar and he is an Unqualified & Unlicensed Paralegal. The same as him bragging he moved from the UK at one stage so he did not have to pay Child Maintenance.
You make some good points but have forgotten the fact he told a Judge recently he has had no legal training. Anyone wanting to use his Paralegal “skills” wants their head examining and if they do take him on then should have no complaint when it all goes belly up. Caveat Emptor springs to mind although not used now.
All the comments from Mark about my background are also hopelessly wrong and I have no desire to correct him at all (apart from to say that in my entire working life, I think that I have only been a ‘housewife’ for a couple of months.
“I’m not a solicitor, but I work as a paralegal for solicitors bringing cases for non-compliant enforcement action”
Even Jason Bennison’s (aka Schedule12) disclaimer falls short of the truth…it should read “I’m not a solicitor, but I work as an untrained, unqualified paralegal for solicitors bringing cases for non-compliant enforcement action.