Defamation & criminal law ?

AnnaStezia

Apologies in advance for asking again a question which I think was asked here previously - I just can't turn it up on the search facility !

If a person is arrested can they be also threatened with arrest/charge with slander arising out of things they say in connection the scenario preceeding the arrest ?

Not a request for advice just an issue arising from discussion !!

Thanks.

Tom Young

See case of McCormack v Adrian Oolsthorn. Its a tort case, judgment of Hardiman J.

In relation to Criminal on this, there are some cases. See Dullaghan v. Hillen and Stone, McIntyre v Lewis on malicious prosecution and of course the more recent case of Frank Short v. Ireland.

Victor

It is also generally the case that it isn't defamation if a person is making a complaint (once not frivilous, malicious, etc.) to an official authority.

pirelli

Tom Young wrote: »

See case of McCormack v Adrian Oolsthorn. Its a tort case, judgment of Hardiman J.

In relation to Criminal on this, there are some cases. See Dullaghan v. Hillen and Stone, McIntyre v Lewis on malicious prosecution and of course the more recent case of Frank Short v. Ireland.

Shortt v Commissioner for An Garda Síochána, Ireland and the Attorney General

pirelli

Victor wrote: »

It is also generally the case that it isn't defamation if a person is making a complaint (once not frivilous, malicious, etc.) to an official authority.

I speculate as to what constitutes crossing that line.

If I or a hypotetical person was making a complaint in writing to a manager about the quality of work of a work task that was carried out by a fellow or colleague (that was straight forward as he/she should have used A4 paper in that report) then how far could I go in attacking that person.

If I get carried away and include in my complaint expressions of opinion against the person such as that the person is mentally incompetent. Is that defamation.

If I went further and you even suggest the person is probably physically or mentally handicapped.

For defamation does it have to be malicious or could it only have to be frivilous to take an action of defamation.

There was recent case in the newspaper about a Judge Brady being awarded roughly 18,000 euro for Defamation although the article was exceptionally vague and only referenced a letter was sent to the president of the court's making a complaint.

Hobart

pirelli wrote: »

I speculate as to what constitutes crossing that line.

If I was making a complaint about a quality of work of a task that was carried out by a person in relation to a fellow or colleague (that was straight forward as he/she should have used A4 paper in that report) then how far could I go in attacking that person.

I really don't see why you would attack that person. Would one's energies not be better directed in attacking the quality of work?

If I get carried away and include in my complaint expressions of opinion against the person such as that the person is mentally incompetent. Is that defamation.

If I went further and you even suggest the person is probably physically or mentally handicapped.

See above. Secondly, your "complaint" must be published somewhere, for it to be defamatory, it must also be false.

There was recent case in the newspaper about a Judge Brady being awarded 18,000 euro for Defamation although the article was exceptionally vague and only referenced a letter was sent to the president of the court's making a complaint.

. I think that that is a very simplistic way of looking at what could have been a career/reputation ending case. Your synopsis also fails to address what constitutes "publication".

Just on an absolute point of clarity, the Judge was not awarded €18,000, it was slightly less.

Planxty

Hobart wrote: »

See above. Secondly, your "complaint" must be published somewhere, for it to be defamatory.

Not necessarily. Surely if it was a slanderous statement this would not be the case? (while bearing in mind that the person who was being verbally attacked would need to incur pecuniary damage, which could be possible depending on the circumstances)

pirelli

Hobart wrote: »

Your synopsis also fails to address what constitutes "publication".

Complaints are usually written and so in this scenario the complaint is written. It is very different but essentially a complaint to a manager is protected by qualified priviledge unless ( as Victor indicated in his post) it is malicious or frivilous. I understand malicous defamation defeat's a defence of qualified priviledge.

Just On the topic I raised about what constitutes malice:
I am wondering if ( as in the above example) in making such a simple complaint has the person
(whomever) over stepped the mark and been malicious or have they defined the limits of qualified priviledge. Would a previous history of nasty comments from this person tip the balance into malicious.

Just on an absolute point of clarity, the Judge was not awarded €18,000, it was slightly less.

The newpaper article quoted 18,000 euro and some online articles have quoted 17,500 euro .
Can you look into this and confirm the correct amount please Hobart.

I really don't see why you would attack that person. Would one's energies not be better directed in attacking the quality of work

Well hypotetical people dont have any energy or do they?
Hobart please can you look into this and see if hypotetical people have energy.

See above. Secondly, your "complaint" must be published somewhere, for it to be defamatory, it must also be false.

By that do you mean the complaint would be protected under qualified priviledge if just the managment received it, or in order to be defamatory it must be written.

Planxty wrote: »

Not necessarily. Surely if it was a slanderous statement this would not be the case? (while bearing in mind that the person who was being verbally attacked would need to incur pecuniary damage, which could be possible depending on the circumstances)

Exactly, Speaking loudly enough for a uninterested* persons to hear would be publishing.

* sometimes even if people with an interest can hear it can be slander.

If a person is arrested can they be also threatened with arrest/charge with slander arising out of things they say in connection the scenario preceeding the arrest

Slander in ireland is a tort and is not a criminal offence. The answer would be NO, but in saying that I saw a highcourt application suing a state worker for criminal slander.Nonetheless It will be a serious offence when the new 2006 defamation bill is activated.


Any communication might be in as far as it might break other laws, as there are many laws about intentionally sending/publishing material that would cause alarm and distress.

1. Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997;
2. Ichoate Offences - Durress, threats;
3. Incitement to hatred, under the 1989 Act;
4. Public Order Offences, under the 1994 Act; and

Hobart

Planxty wrote: »

Not necessarily. Surely if it was a slanderous statement this would not be the case? (while bearing in mind that the person who was being verbally attacked would need to incur pecuniary damage, which could be possible depending on the circumstances)

Planxty, Pirelli's retort was made in relation to the premise from Victor that the complaint was made to "an official authority". Now while slander is oral, as opposed to written, I'll accept that technically you are correct. I will not argue the point with you across this medium, of course a person of official authority could have been within ear-shot.

pirelli wrote: »

Complaints are usually written

Really? I would have thought that most complaints were verbal.

and so in this scenario the complaint is written. It is very different but essentially a complaint to a manager is protected by qualified priviledge unless ( as Victor indicated in his post) it is malicious or frivilous. I understand malicous defamation defeat's a defence of qualified priviledge.

That maybe true, but the case you referred to did not involve a manager. Far from it to be honest.

Just On the topic I raised about what constitutes malice:
I am wondering if ( as in the above example) in making such a simple complaint has the person
(whomever) over stepped the mark and been malicious or have they defined the limits of qualified priviledge. Would a previous history of nasty comments from this person tip the balance into malicious.

I did not see an example above. Secondly, if you think that I am stupid enough to try to answer that question above, you underestimate yourself .

The newpaper article quoted 18,000 euro and some online articles have quoted 17,500 euro .

what newspaper article?

Can you look into this and confirm the correct amount please Hobart.

lol

Well hypotetical people dont have any energy or do they?
Hobart please can you look into this and see if hypotetical people have energy.

Lol. Why don't you address what I have said in your hypotetical question. As opposed to avoiding the original question?

By that it

What?

do you mean the complaint would be protected under qualified priviledge if just the managment received it, or in order to be defamatory it must be written.

No. That is not what I mean.

pirelli wrote:

Exactly, Speaking loudly enough for a uninterested* persons to hear would be publishing.

* sometimes even if people with an interest can hear it can be slander.

Exactly. That is the single point you have failed to look at in your reference above.

<snip>

pirelli

Slander is a tort and not a crime.

Hobart wrote: »

Exactly. That is the single point you have failed to look at in your reference above.

<snip>

It's been Published, the words were spoken loudly, written in the complaint to the manager, but not broadcast nationally. The tort of defamation has well and truly been committed.

However the defence of qualified priviledge is available, and what I was wondering is ... In such a situation; At what point does the complainants irrelevant and cruel remarks cause the qualified priviledge to become defeated?

Does a mere frivilous attack leave the complainant vulnerable to being sued for defamation.

If the complainant got carried away, and included in the complaint expressions of dark opinion against the person such as that the person is mentally incompetent

If the person went further and suggests the person is physically or mentally handicapped and a threat to moral society.

Would these types of remarks defeat a defence of qualified priviledge.?

johnnyskeleton

Planxty wrote: »

Not necessarily. Surely if it was a slanderous statement this would not be the case? (while bearing in mind that the person who was being verbally attacked would need to incur pecuniary damage, which could be possible depending on the circumstances)

Publication, in the defamation context, is to communicate (intentionally or otherwise) the defamatory statement to a third party. So slandering someone orally to another person is considered publication.

pirelli

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Publication, in the defamation context, is to communicate (intentionally or otherwise) the defamatory statement to a third party. So slandering someone orally to another person is considered publication.

*bump*

If I slandered or libeled someone could I claim qualified priviledge to prevent that person bringing a case to court.

i.e.
Could I stop a tort of libel or slander aginst me by claiming qualified priviledge or would I have to defend it in court.

* If The qualified priviledge defence is shaky or not definite.

johnnyskeleton

pirelli wrote: »

If I slandered or libeled someone could I claim qualified priviledge to prevent that person bringing a case to court.

No.

pirelli wrote: »

Could I stop a tort of libel or slander aginst me by claiming qualified priviledge or would I have to defend it in court.

* If The qualified priviledge defence is shaky or not definite.

Defend it.