Is this libal?

humanji

Hi, I've a question about libal, that I thought I'd ask here. Sorry if it seems vague and disjointed, but considering the subject matter, I don't want Boards getting into trouble.

Basically, if someone was arrested for a crime and evidence was obtained that pretty much proved the defendant was guilty, but due to a mix up, it turns out the evidence was falsly obtained and couldn't be used, resulting in the defendant walking free of the charges, is it still libal to say that the person was guilty of the crime but just couldn't get convicted?

I was just thinking that if said defendant brought you to court over the things you said about them, could you even bring up the falsy obtained evidence to defend yourself?

Thanks.

Degag

humanji wrote:

Hi, I've a question about libal, that I thought I'd ask here. Sorry if it seems vague and disjointed, but considering the subject matter, I don't want Boards getting into trouble.

Basically, if someone was arrested for a crime and evidence was obtained that pretty much proved the defendant was guilty, but due to a mix up, it turns out the evidence was falsly obtained and couldn't be used, resulting in the defendant walking free of the charges, is it still libal to say that the person was guilty of the crime but just couldn't get convicted?

I was just thinking that if said defendant brought you to court over the things you said about them, could you even bring up the falsy obtained evidence to defend yourself?

Thanks.

Sounds similar to a case in the news recently involving a judge....

haz

humanji wrote:

I was just thinking that if said defendant brought you to court over the things you said about them, could you even bring up the falsy obtained evidence to defend yourself?

Libel is a false statement. If the person whose reputation is at stake wishes to have these matters aired in court and in the newspapers, then a libel action is a good way of doing it. If the defendent can not prove the issue is true then it might involve a handsome payout - the presumption is that libel has occurred and there is no onus to prove the statement is false.

UK politicians (Tommy Sheridan, Jeffrey Archer, Neil Hamilton, Jonathon Aitken) seem to like raising their electoral profiles this way, and even obtain substantial campaign contributions through the courts, but it doesn't increase their popularity.

Sounds a bit like suing Borat.

seamus

humanji wrote:

I was just thinking that if said defendant brought you to court over the things you said about them, could you even bring up the falsy obtained evidence to defend yourself?

Well, that's an interesting one. I'm sure there's precedent for this, but I suspect that the big difference is criminal -v- civil. In order to obtain a criminal conviction, certain rules must be followed in order to obtain evidence and use it in court. I'm not sure if these same rules apply in civil cases, i.e. the person proving their statements may not have to show that the evidence they obtained was obtained through valid warrants (they may not even have to reveal their source at all).

There are also certain priviledges which the court holds. If someone says in court that "X is a paedophile", then afaik the aggreived party has no right to sue for libel because the court provides some sanctity.

Also, headlines like "X charged under Paedophile Act" or "X charged after paedophile images found on PC" are not necessarily libel because they state actual facts as opposed to "X is a paedophile".

You'll always find that papers are quite careful in their wording before and after cases. When a murder occurs, for example, the headlines will often be "X charged with Y's murder", and when reporting the case, they will say things like "Y's killer is believed to have....". However, once X is found guilty of murder, they will use headlines like "X is a murderer" or "X killed Y".

humanji

humanji wrote:

Basically, if someone was arrested for a crime and evidence was obtained that pretty much proved the defendant was guilty, but due to a mix up, it turns out the evidence was falsly obtained and couldn't be used, resulting in the defendant walking free of the charges, is it still libal to say that the person was guilty of the crime but just couldn't get convicted?

Depends what you mean by guilty. If you implied that a person was convicted, then you could be sued for defamation. If you implied that they committed the offence, and could prove it aftwerwards to the civil standard, then no defamation arises. It is incorect to say that OJ Simpson was convicted for the murder of Ronald Goldman. It is accurate to say that he was liable for the wrongful death of that man, because the civil courts said so and awarded €33m in damages.

humanji wrote:

I was just thinking that if said defendant brought you to court over the things you said about them, could you even bring up the falsy obtained evidence to defend yourself?

Yes. The laws of evidence in criminal law are completely different to standards adapted in civil courts, though you would still have to prove them in that civil court and questioning that might not be allowed in criminal courts may be allowed.

Overheal

What about illegally obtained information? ie. I live in an Apt. Block where there is a security camera that can potentially see into my bedroom. If it caught me smoking Cannabis (for hypothetical) in here, how much would they be able to do about it? It being an invasion of my privacy and all.

seamus

Overheal wrote:

What about illegally obtained information? ie. I live in an Apt. Block where there is a security camera that can potentially see into my bedroom. If it caught me smoking Cannabis (for hypothetical) in here, how much would they be able to do about it? It being an invasion of my privacy and all.

That would be a criminal matter, and as such the evidence would not be admissable. If your landlord wanted to use it to kick you out, that's a slightly different matter. He could kick you out, but you could probably sue for invasion of privacy.

dermot_sheehan

In a libel action, the defense only has to prove the libellous statement was true on the civil standard, balance of probabilities which is much lower then the criminal standard. It's therefore easier for a libel jury to find that a statement was true then to convict someone of a crime.

I'm unaware of case law on whether unconstitutionaly obtained evidence is admissable at a civil trial, if I recall the justification for the exclusionary rule in People v. O'Brien was that admitting unconstitutionaly obtained evidence infringed an accused's article 38 guarantee to trial in due course of law, this of course would not apply in a civil trial.

Regarding a video camera looking in, there's nothing stopping the building superintent handing it over to gardai. If you can be seen from outside your dwelling then no warrant is required since gardai aren't entering it.

Overheal

Theres a camera that can look into my bedroom; last year, they had to tear down an entire column of cameras for staring into people's Living Room/kitchens. and you're telling me thats not an invasion of my privacy, and whats more its Legitimate? Im sorry Gabhain, that doesnt sound too correct