slander?

IncredibleHulk

I was in a store last Sat. A security man, in jeans and casual shirt had a walkie talkie on his waist. The volume was such that the whole shop could hear as he was given info on an apparently suspicious couple with large silver plastic bag who may have been heading to his shop. 2 questions

1 Should he be in uniform?

2 Is he and the guy on the radio slandering the people with the big silver bag?

Just curious

pirelli

Gately's law on slander,

Gately 17.4
There are many situations where you can, for example a shopkeeper can stop a person and accuse them of stealing a item in front of everybody if it is in the interest of prosecuting them, and even when the item is found not to be stolen it isnt slander. It might be assault in fact it would be.
V Osthorn.
In another twist kearns v coleman the butcher presumably in front of shoppers asked Mrs Kearns for the rasher she had taken back. This was held to be slander as the butcher was not pursuing a prosecution.

No! To your first question but dont know about liability etc..
Dont Know to your second.

sh_o

Take a look at McCormack –v- Olsthoorn and the judgment of Mr Justice Hardiman who explores the current position in Ireland.

pirelli

You have a good knowledge there sh_o. In this instance though i dont think the woman with the silver bag had an interest in the slander, I think it boils down to whether the people could reasonably assume who the pair were. If it was a very busy shop then there might be many coloured bags coming through the door. It might be slander if there was malice. For example the doorman who can see the other doorman sees the woman entering the shop and transmits the radio message in the full knowledge that she will hear it as she passes the security guard and in fact expressly times it so to cause her humiliation out of mockery. That might well be slander.

sh_o

Identification is one element of the tort - whether the couple could have been identified by the comment would be decisive in that. Then obivously you would need to look into the other elements of the tort to ensure that all of the elements of slander are there.

The malice issue, in my opinion, would go to whether or not the security had any defence in law for their actions - malice defeats qualified privilege!

Tom Young

1. No, security guard does not have to be in uniform.

2. Slander is not applicable.

Lets not get confused here please. McCormack v Olsthoorn denied the tort of libel/slander and upheld bona fide protection of property. The plaintiff was awarded 3,500 for false imprisionment.

I think people should read the cases before placing extracts and views in support of a point which might be materially incorrect.

Extract from ICLMD

The defendant operated a market stall which sold potted plants. The plaintiff visited the defendant's stall while carrying in his hand a tomato plant which he had purchased elsewhere. The plaintiff picked up some plants from the defendant's stall, put them down again when he realised they were not of the variety he wanted and left. He was accosted about 25 yards from the stall by the defendant, who erroneously believed that the plaintiff had stolen the tomato plant he was carrying from the defendant's stall.




Held , dismissing the claim for defamation and awarding damages for assault and false imprisonment, that the defendant had a legal right to protect his property by “taxing” an individual whom he suspected of a theft and that this was an occasion of qualified privilege. The presence of bystanders did not, in such circumstances, deprive the defendant of qualified privilege (Toogood v Spyring [1834] 1 Cr M&R 181 considered). Privilege existed where a legally recognised duty or interest in speaking existed. The legitimate desire to recover one's property was as legitimate an interest as the desire to bring a thief to justice (Coleman v Keanes Ltd. [1946] Ir. Jur. Rep. 5 overruled). A person seeking to avail of the privilege need not have reasonable grounds or evidence before so acting. Privilege was lost by malice, excessively wide publication or one of the other established causes; it was not lost merely because the belief turned out to be erroneous or because the defendant was hasty. (Coleman v Keanes Ltd. [1946] Ir. Jur. Rep. 5 overruled). The presence or absence of reasonable grounds for the defendant's belief might be relevant in a case where malice was pleaded.

sh_o

Confused.... :rolleyes: I think from reading the first line of Hardiman's decision on the legal issues where he says: "I believe that the occasion at the Milk Market was one of qualified privilege. "

Surely if he is looking into the applicable defences, then the elements of the tort must be present? Would that not suggest that slander is relevant? Hard to rule it out completely without more details on the facts of what happened....
Just my opinion, no need to agree or disagree!

Tom Young

Its QP rather than slander, I'd tend to agree that the tort is possibly there but then again slander is awfully weak and terribly hard to prove.

IncredibleHulk

sh_o wrote: »

Identification is one element of the tort - whether the couple could have been identified by the comment would be decisive in that. QUOTE]

Well, o n leaving shop I looked for them as a curiosity and did not see anyone with a large silver bag but if I had I might have though maybe that is them