Schrodinger's defamation

kirving

I'm sure people have seen plenty of posts online calling a famous Irish sports star a rapist, before a civil trial ended.

Obviously this is inadvisable, but the people who called him that have subsequently been proven right (for want of a better word).

This got me thinking of the following scenario. Simple example, but let's assume my reputation is actually damaged.

Take the following:

1. John steals a loaf of bread on Monday
2. Mary publicly accuses John of being a thief on Tuesday
3. John's reputation is damaged for all of Wednesday
4. John is charged with stealing the load of bread on Thursday
5. John isconvicted on Friday

Given that what John was accused of was actually true, but was only proven to be so afterward, would John have a case against Mary for defamation?

Andrea B.

Maybe a question for Oscar Wilde.

phildub

He could take the case but she would have the defence of honestly held belief, she would give her accoun to the judge and he would make the decision

cml387

Or possibly that he was now proven to be a thief, he had no reputation to loose.

Jim_Hodge

It's not defamation if it's true. And Mary's statement was proven true. There's nothing even remotely Schrodingerish about this scenario.

magicbastarder

I know it's not a legal definition per se, bit from the citizens information site:

"A statement is not defamatory if it is true or substantially true."

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/civil-law/law-on-defamation/

magicbastarder

I'd be curious about what legal recourse there is when someone successfully sues for defamation or libel, where the accusations were subsequently proven to be true. How difficult is it to sue for your money back?

Insect Overlord

Thought this thread was going to be about Schrodinger's damaged reputation since people started paying more attention to his dodgy interests...

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122873833#Comment_122873833

Given the forum, and being pedantic, that is technically incorrect. A statement can be defamatory, but truth would be a defence to a defamation action. The statement is still defamatory (as per the definition in statute)

28064212

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122873833#Comment_122873833

Not only is it not a legal definition, it's explicitly wrong. Here's the definition of a defamatory statement straight from the Defamation Act (2009):

“defamatory statement” means a statement that tends to injure a person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society

Truth is a legal defence against a defamation action. It does not change whether the statement was defamatory, anymore than the defence of Qualified Privilege does.

Truth is also not an absolute defence. Proving your statement was true does not automatically win you the case. Example: I make a statement that "Joe Bloggs punched his wife in the face". I know and can prove that this is a true statement. However, I leave out (or don't know) that Mrs Bloggs was attacking him with a knife at the time, and his action was a legitimate self-defense. There would be a strong possibility I lose a defamation case if Joe Bloggs took one against me.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122873861#Comment_122873861

There would be no recourse. The defence of truth is not based on the objective all-knowing truth, it is based on what the defendant can prove in court during the defamation action. Note that the defence of truth means the onus is on the defendant to prove their statement is true - the plantiff does not have to prove it is false.

kirving

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122873861#Comment_122873861

I was going to add that in alright, but it was getting a bit complicated for a hypothetical question.

To change it up a bit:

1. John steals
2. Mary accuses him
3. John sues for defamation
4. John wins his case and gets a payout
5. John is charged
6. John is convicted

What, if any, recourse does Mary have?

I'm thinking back now to people who made accusations years ago, but the case only comes up a few weeks ago.

Cookie_Monster

Surely every reasonable person already knows John is a thieving scumbag anyway and wouldn't see Mary's statement as defamatory?

28064212

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122875505#Comment_122875505

As I posted above:

There would be no recourse. The defence of truth is not based on the objective all-knowing truth, it is based on what the defendant can prove in court during the defamation action. Note that the defence of truth means the onus is on the defendant to prove their statement is true - the plantiff does not have to prove it is false.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122875910#Comment_122875910

If that was the case, John would never have won his defamation case:

defamatory statement means a statement that tends to injure a person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society

If you're already known as a "thieving scumbag", a statement to that effect would not be defamatory. Of course, there are degrees. If John is well known as an opportunistic bicycle thief, but Mary accuses him of stealing €100,000 from the local children's orphanage, then John may have a legitimate defamation action.

And again, what is objectively true is irrelevant. If Mary wants to use the truth defence, she must prove in court that her statement is true.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122875505#Comment_122875505

Pretty much the facts of the Jeffrey Archer case in the UK:

1. 1986: Daily Star runs a story that Archer, author and politician, had paid for sex with a prostitute.
2. 1987: Archer recovers £500k for libel.
3. 2000: Archer is charged with perjury during the 1987 trial
4. 2001: Archer is convicted of perjury and jailed.
5. 2002: Archer repays the Daily Star the damaged he received in 1987, plus costs, plus interest; a total of £1.3 million.

I think, but I'm not sure, that the Daily Star had instituted proceedings against Archer to recover the money, and the payment was made in settlement of those proceedings. But it's possible that he paid in advance of any proceedings being issued, since why prolong the agony? He would certainly have lost any proceedings that the Daily Star might have brought.

Because, fun fact: in England, a verdict in the civil courts is not binding on the criminal courts; in fact, it's irrelevant in criminal proceedings. But, the other way round, it's different: a verdict in the criminal courts is binding on the civil courts — it can't be questioned or challenged in civil proceedings. So Archer couldn't have defended a claim by the Daily Star on the grounds that he was wrongly convicted of perjury.

The rule in Ireland is different: A verdict of the criminal courts is treated in the civil courts as prima facie evidence, but it can be questioned and you can seek to rebut it with evidence.

So it would play out like this:

1. I allege that Kirving is a thief
2. Kirving sues me for defamation
3. I plead justification, pointing out that kirving has already been convicted of theft.
4. In England, that would be the end of the matter. Kirving's action would be dismissed.
5. But in Ireland, kirving could attempt to challenge the theft conviction — to argue that he was wrongly convicted. Effectively, he could get his theft charge retried before a civil jury. It would probably be very difficult for him to succeed, but it is open to him to try.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122880508#Comment_122880508

This arose in the Catherine Nevin case.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20224264.html