BS: Libel/Slander law UK

Subject: BS: Libel/Slander law UK
From: Bagpuss
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 05:46 AM

I tried to post this before but it fell into a black hole.

This question is obviously about a famous story in the media right now, but I am less interested in gossiping about the story than asking a particular legal question which applies, so I won't use any names or details, just the framework.

X alleges a crime has been committed against her in the past but does not give any details of the person's identity.

The identity of the alleged criminal (A) is "common knowledge" in the media but nothing is made public.

Y states publicly that the person X is referring to (A) is a well known TV presenter.

Z accidentally reveals the identity of A on a tv show, and then apologises for making the slip.

The tabloids print the story about A the following day.

The question is, can A sue anyone if he so chose? Can he sue X - who didn't give any clue as to the identity of the alleged criminal? Can he sue Z who did not allege that he is a criminal, but rather that he is the person widely believed by the media to be the person that X alleges is a criminal - which is apparently true? (I love all these Xs and Ys!). And in any case he did so accidentally and apologised for it. Can he sue the tabloids who are reporting about previous events rather than making any direct allegations against A?

Anyone got an idea of the legal position?

Subject: RE: BS: Libel/Slander law UK
From: Gervase
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 06:05 AM

Indeed it's topical - at the bottom are some of the notes for the students at my evening class last night...but meanwhile let's consider the case in question:
A could sue the originator of the libel, the publisher and the distributor.
That means he could sue Z, who blurted it out, the broadcster who let Z blurt it, the newspapers who reported Z's blurting and the distributors of those newspapers.
X is in the clear as she didn't say anything which, taken in iteself, could be construed as libellous (the phrase well-known TV presenter is too vague to imply any particular person).
Of course, A would only sue for libel if he was confident that the events alleged were untrue. In the event of a writ, the newspapers would be the first port of call, and they would presumably call upon A to make a statement, while any sbsequent police action against X as a result of claims now being made by B and C (eh? more bloody letters!) would have a bearing on the case.

Libel - Anything derogatory, critical, inaccurate published about a living person can be libellous. They can be identified by implication. Libel actions have to be launched within three years of publication. Repeating the libel can lead to fresh action.
Definitions:
A statement about a person is defamatory if it does any of the following:
Exposes the person to hatred, ridicule, or contempt;
Causes the person to be shunned or avoided;
Lowers the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally;
Disparages the person in her/his business, trade or profession.
To succeed in a civil libel action, the plaintiff must prove that the statement complained of:
    Is defamatory;
    Has been reasonably understood to refer to him/her (not necessarily by name);
    Has been published to a third person.
Just as important is what the plaintiff does not need to prove:
    That the statement was false;
    That the defamation was intended;
    That the plaintiff has been defamed.
Someone could sue for libel even if the people to whom the statement was published knew it to be untrue. Only a tendency to discredit need be shown; the court assumes damage.
Worst Examples:
    Accusing people of crimes they have not committed.
    Alleging hypocrisy.
    Alleging they have contagious diseases, alleging they are so obnoxious nobody can work with them, alleging they're negligent in their work, alleging they are unemployable because they are so incompetent.
    Alleging dishonesty or immorality.
    Accusing them of sexual impropriety, alleging inaccurate sexuality.
    Accusing them of lying.
    Wrongly accusing people of doing disreputable things.
Danger words: adulterous, bankrupt, bribery, compulsive liar, communist, con, corrupt, coward, criminal, crook, drug addict, drug dealer, evil, fraud, fascist, Hitlerian, homosexual, hypocrite, immoral, incompetent, insane, insolvent, junkie, liar, Mafia, mentally diseased, misappropriated funds, Nazi, paranoid, pervert, pimp, plagiarist, lining the pockets, prostituting, quack, queer, racist, rapist, rip-off, satanic, scab, shyster, sleazebag, slut, spy, stupid, swindling, thieving, traitorous, unethical, unprofessional, unscrupulous, unsound…
Summarising the danger area of discussion:
Implying a loathsome disease; Falsely alleging arrest, indictment, confession or conviction of a crime; Alleging Anti-Semitism, or other imputation of religious, racist or ethnic intolerance; Suggesting connivance or association with criminals; Accusations of lying; Suggestion of involvement in racket or swindle; Claims of membership of an organisation which is disreputable; Imputing financial embarrassment or implication of insolvency or want of credit; Accusing of unwillingness or refusal to pay a debt; Suggesting poverty or squalor.
Defensive mechanisms:
It is important to be fair and accurate. There are some defences, however:
Justification
In essence, the words complained of are true in substance and in fact. It is a complete defence and also one of the most difficult.
Fair comment
Opinions expressed in good faith and without malice on a matter of public interest are safe - but read on.
The facts upon which the comment is based must be true. The only exception is where the comment is based on privileged material (see Privilege) such as a court report.
The defendant need not persuade the judge or jury to share the opinions which may be exaggerated, obstinate or prejudiced as long as they are honestly held.
Accord & Satisfaction
This defence to a libel action simply means that the matter has been otherwise dealt with. For example, the plaintiff has accepted the publication of a correction and apology.
Unintentional defamation
If the defamation was not foreseeable, as when a fictitious character is identifiable with a real person or where facts unknown to the writer make the statement defamatory. Under the 1952 Defamation Act there is a defence if: the words complained of were published innocently and an offer of amends is made in accordance with the Act.
Other defences
    That the plaintiff has died (dead people cannot be libelled or slandered in law);
    That the plaintiff agreed to the publication;
    That proceedings were not started within three years of publication (keep your notebooks);
    That the matter has already been adjudged.
It is possible to libel someone, even if you don't mention them by name. It's enough that they be identifiable from what you have written.
So, purely as an example, if one were to publish the claim that a former female Prime Minister of Great Britain was (insert libellous comment of your choice here) it would be no defence to say Margaret Thatcher's name did not appear. There is only one former female Prime Minister. That makes the identification clear.
Even more general references to less well-known people can be risky. "A certain left-handed accountant with a liking for golf..." (followed by some defamatory comment) could well result in a number of writs for libel, mostly from left-handed accountants you've never heard of, all claiming they could have been mistaken for the person referred to.
Privilege (Absolute and Qualified):- Something defamatory said in Parliament, Courts, Tribunals, Foreign Courts, and Parliaments, Public Meetings, Statements by Government Bodies can be protected as long as:
    You attribute.
    Your report is fair and accurate.
    And in most cases you give the person who is being attacked the chance to comment or contradict.
Absolute privilege attaches to reports from Parliament and the courts and when you publish in your earliest possible edition or broadcast. There are two kinds of qualified privilege. The first kind requires you to be fair and accurate in your reporting and relates to accounts of previous parliamentary hearings or court cases, or reports of trials and parliaments abroad.
Qualified privilege subject to explanation or contradiction relates to statements by government bodies, reports of public meetings, local authorities or associations. As a matter of professional practice it is sensible to take the initiative and solicit their response to the allegations. Then you could never be accused of not trying or failing to report their position.

Subject: RE: BS: Libel/Slander law UK
From: Gervase
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 06:12 AM

For the prurient, there's a link to the Xs, Ys, Z,s and A's here.
Of course, I couldn't possible comment on the anitcs of a former presenter. Always fancied that Janet Ellis though...

Subject: RE: BS: Libel/Slander law UK
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 06:15 AM

If I allege that Tony Blair is a lying piece of shit, can he sue me, or is it allowed under the fair comment rule?
See thread "UK firemans's strike".

Subject: RE: BS: Libel/Slander law UK
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 06:17 AM

John: I think you'd probably get away with the "Lying" comment.

Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: Libel/Slander law UK
From: Bagpuss
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 06:45 AM

"Of course, A would only sue for libel if he was confident that the events alleged were untrue"

Unless he was Jeffrey Archer?

Subject: RE: BS: Libel/Slander law UK
From: Mr Red
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 09:16 AM

Broadcasting is a funny medium - if it is live and there are no recordings (hardly likely now) it would be slander. If the recording (reprint etc) is disseminated then it is libel.

I once received a letter from an ex-employer effectively telling me they thought I had done something since leaving. Then went on to say don't do it again - accusing me. I was advised that any letter to a private individual is subject to libel laws if any person other than the officers of the company had seen it - like the typist or the owner of the house I was living in!

Miriam Margolis (allegedly) used to put chatty answerphone messages about her exploits. On one occasion she had a set-to with an actress and voiced opinions vociferously on tape. She was made to remove the tape and "publish" an apology on the same medium - it was libel because it was repeated in recorded form.

The first thing libel lawyers ask is the depth of your pocket.

John from 'Ull - If you said the "Prime Minister" was a lying piece of shit, Blair would have no case - you have (is it?) 6 to chose from, and that is just those extant. AND 60 million expert witnesses to call on.

Subject: RE: BS: Libel/Slander law UK
From: GUEST,Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 05:11 PM

Gervase.

You perhaps overlook that a person may sue (all other things being equal) if he is in fact identified. This includes identification through extrinsic facts.

"Lying piece of shit" is not actionable. It is mere vulgar abuse. The "fair comment" rule is not involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Libel/Slander law UK
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 07:21 PM

tony blare id a peece od shit.john

Subject: RE: BS: Libel/Slander law UK
From: Roger the Skiffler
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 04:22 AM

I've too much inate good taste to mention the:
"and here's one I laid earlier"
joke.
RtS

Subject: RE: BS: Libel/Slander law UK
From: Mr Red
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 08:15 AM

Sorry John from 'Ull - I identified that prime minister from the intrinsic data. AS Boney Tear's adviser I have to inform you of impending litigation ......................

Subject: RE: BS: Libel/Slander law UK
From: Davetnova
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 08:48 AM

Perhaps prime piece of sh*t is a better description for Tony B. Liar