Quote:
| Originally Posted by Rushjob Hmmm.
Whatever your thoughts on service pricing structures, I think this comment may have gone a bit far.
If that was about me in my professional capacity, I'd suggest you got a good solicitor cause you'd have mail....
Definite defamation IMHO....... |
ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA
Modern law
English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them.
A statement can include an implication. A large photograph of Tony Blair above a headline saying "Corrupt Politicians" might be held to be an allegation that Tony Blair was personally corrupt.
The allowable defences against libel are:
Justification: the defendant proves that the statement was true. If the defence fails, a court may treat any material produced by the defence to substantiate it, and any ensuing media coverage, as factors aggravating the libel and increasing the damages.
Fair Comment: the defendant shows that the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held, even if they were motivated by dislike or hatred of the plaintiff.
Privilege: the defendant's comments were made in Parliament or under oath in court of law or were an accurate and neutral report of such comments. There is also a defence of 'qualified privilege' under which people, who are not acting out of malice, may claim privilege for fair reporting of allegations which if true were in the public interest to be published. The leading modern English case on qualified privilege in the context of newspaper articles which are claimed to defame a public figure is now Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd and Others, 1999 UKHL 45.
An offer of amends - typically a combination of correction, apology and/or financial compensation - is a barrier to litigation in the courts.
[edit]
Burden of Proof on the Plaintiff
In most legal systems the courts give the benefit of the doubt to people being tried. They are presumed innocent until the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (in criminal law), or the plaintiff can show liability on a balance of probabilities (in civil law). However, at first glance, this burden of proof, in defamation laws - in some countries' legal systems, e.g. in the UK and Australia - seems to be reversed. In other countries, e.g. the USA, the burden of proof is on the accuser, consistent with other laws.
In systems where the burden of proof is said to be reversed, once the plaintiff meets the burden of proof that the publisher made the allegedly defamatory statement, the untruth of that statement is then presumed — the innocence of the person allegedly defamed is presumed, rather than the innocence of the person allegedly defaming.
So the burden of proof falls onto the defendant in the case, which can be called a reversal of the burden of proof.
The English laws on libel have traditionally favored the plaintiffs. A recent decision by the European Court of Human Rights (in the so-called "McLibel case") held that, on the (exceptional) facts of that case, the burden on the defendants in the English courts was too high. However, it is unlikely that the case will provoke any considerable change in substantive English law, despite strong academic criticism of the current position. [1]
14-Aug-2006, 11:27 
Hybrid Mode
