Libel/Defamation

January

If a newspaper printed something that didn't name somebody but they could be identified from what was said, would there be a case of libel/defamation of character?

Mr. Incognito

Probably.

Victor

January wrote: »

If a newspaper printed something that didn't name somebody but they could be identified from what was said, would there be a case of libel/defamation of character?

Subject to the normal rules of defamation - it has to be untrue, lower the person in the eyes of others, etc.

There is the odd case of people who have been arrested, accused of all sorts of things in the media, but when they are charged and identified, those accusations aren't referred to again until conviction.

January

Yeah it would lower the person in the eys of others. Think along the lines of being accused of being drunk at the time of an accident when they actually weren't.

hullaballoo

It doesn't have to be untrue to be defamatory.

Peregrinus

January wrote: »

If a newspaper printed something that didn't name somebody but they could be identified from what was said, would there be a case of libel/defamation of character?

Short answer: if it would be defamatory of a named person, then it's defamatory of an unnamed person who can nevertheless be identified.

Slightly longer answer: But if the person isn't easily identifiable, they might think twice before suing, since that might cause a lot more people to become aware of the defamatory allegations, and of the fact that they refer to this person.

Peregrinus

Victor wrote: »

Subject to the normal rules of defamation - it has to be untrue, lower the person in the eyes of others, etc.

There is the odd case of people who have been arrested, accused of all sorts of things in the media, but when they are charged and identified, those accusations aren't referred to again until conviction.

Nothing to do with defamation. It's to avoid prejudicing potential jurors by fixing in their minds accusations of various depravities with which the accused has not in fact been charged.

Tigger

hullaballoo wrote: »

It doesn't have to be untrue to be defamatory.

interesting
can i have an example tonunderstand

Peregrinus

I think the point being made is that, if I say something about X that tends to lower X's reputation, that is defamatory of X. For example, I might say that X stole money from a children's charity.

If X sues me, all he has to prove is (a) that I said it, and (b) that it tends to lower his reputation (which it obviously does). He does not have to prove that what I said is false.

It's then up to me to defend myself, if I care to, by claiming that what I said is true - that X did steal money from the charity. If I take this route, the onus is on me to prove the truth of what I said; X still does not have to prove that it is false. I have to produce evidence in court that persuades the court to a high degree of satisfaction that, yes, X really did steal the money. It's not enough to satisfy the court that my belief that X stole the money is honest, reasonable, etc; I have to satisfy them that he did actually steal the money.

If I succeed in proving that what I said was true, that's a complete defence. The risk I run is that it could be true, and yet I might be unable to prove to the satisfaction of the court that it's true, and in that case X's defamation action against me is likely to succeed.

FreudianSlippers

Tigger wrote: »

interesting
can i have an example tonunderstand

Peregrinus explained it well, but just to put it another way from the Act:

“defamatory statement” means a statement that tends to injure a person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society, and “defamatory” shall be construed accordingly;

6.— (2) The tort of defamation consists of the publication, by any means, of a defamatory statement concerning a person to one or more than one person (other than the first-mentioned person), and “ defamation ” shall be construed accordingly.

16.— (1) It shall be a defence (to be known and in this Act referred to as the “defence of truth”) to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that the statement in respect of which the action was brought is true in all material respects.

Obviously s6(1) abolishes libel as a tort, but s6(2) explains that defamation is the publication of a defamatory statement which is not required to be "untrue"; however a defendant can defend a defamation action by proving the statement to be true.

With regard to identity, that's contained at s6(3) A defamatory statement concerns a person if it could reasonably be understood as referring to him or her. There is some case law on this with Coleman v MGN Ltd [2012] IESC 20 being still probably the best domestic.

Samuel T. Cogley

January wrote: »

If a newspaper printed something that didn't name somebody but they could be identified from what was said, would there be a case of libel/defamation of character?

6.— (1) The tort of libel and the tort of slander—

(a) shall cease to be so described, and

(b) shall, instead, be collectively described, and are referred to in this Act, as the “ tort of defamation ”.

(2) The tort of defamation consists of the publication, by any means, of a defamatory statement concerning a person to one or more than one person (other than the first-mentioned person), and “ defamation ” shall be construed accordingly.

(3) A defamatory statement concerns a person if it could reasonably be understood as referring to him or her.

(4) There shall be no publication for the purposes of the tort of defamation if the defamatory statement concerned is published to the person to whom it relates and to a person other than the person to whom it relates in circumstances where—

(a) it was not intended that the statement would be published to the second-mentioned person, and

(b) it was not reasonably foreseeable that publication of the statement to the first-mentioned person would result in its being published to the second-mentioned person.

(5) The tort of defamation is actionable without proof of special damage.

January

Thanks all, it is being sorted. Doesn't help that the case was 20 years ago