Can you defame someone by claiming they *will* do something?

magicbastarder

There's an agony aunt letter answered in the Irish times today - paywalled, but the gist is that a relationship is in significant trouble because a psychic told the partner of the letter writer, that he would cheat on her with one of her friends at some point in the future.

Just got me thinking; could that amount to defamation? There have been no claims made which could be subject to normal factual verification, in a sense, but it's a negative statement on someone's character. But in the absence of being accused of actually having done anything, I assume it's not legally actionable?

https://www.irishtimes.com/health/your-wellness/2025/06/18/a-psychic-told-my-partner-i-would-cheat-on-her-and-now-i-am-being-driven-out-of-the-relationship/

StormForce13

Irish juries are capable of almost anything; but even for them I reckon that that's a bridge too far!

magicbastarder

(I am not the letter writer in the times FWIW!)

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123556590#Comment_123556590

The context given is an unusual one; but if I was to, say, accuse someone of being 'the type' who would sexually assault women, can that person claim their good name has been defamed if I haven't actually made a specific claim of such a crime?

28064212

Legal definition of a defamatory statement (Defamation Act 2009):

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

Note that the truth of a statement does not come into play in that definition. Truth is a defence that the defendant can employ in court, it has no affect on whether a statement is considered defamatory. If the psychic was sued for defamation, the plaintiff would need to demonstrate that their reputation was injured (or would be likely to have been injured).

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123556606#Comment_123556606

No specific claim is required. If it injures a person's reputation (and I would say that such a statement would), then it would be considered defamatory.

Of course, just because a statement is considered defamatory, it does not automatically mean that a defamation claim would succeed. There are a number of defences available to the plaintiff e.g. truth, honest opinion, privileged statements (these all have very specific meanings in the law - honest opinion is not just "well, I really thought it was true")

Even if there is no defence and the case is won, a judge/jury will consider the actual impact of the statement: Albert Reynolds sued the Sunday Times for defamation (or libel, as it was known at the time) and won his case - he was awarded one penny.

StormForce13

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123556606#Comment_123556606

In effect what the so-called psychic told the woman is "Although I haven't a clue who your partner is and don't know anything about him (or her), I know that he or she is going to have an affair with one of your best friends at some time in the future."

I genuinely struggle to understand why on earth she would take such utter bilge seriously.

But, given that she did, it's his own fault for marrying such a gullible person, so it serves him right!

Peregrinus

The question is whether an ordinary member of the public would think less of you because a psychic who had never met you claimed that you were likely to, or were predestined to, commit some horrible act or other.

You might think that someone would have to be daft to attach any weight at all to the psychic's opinion, and you might be right. But in fact a suprising number of people do take these things at least somewhat seriously. And, from a legal point of view, the question is not whether an ordinary member of the public ought to think less of you because of the psychic's reading, but whether as a matter of fact ordinary members of the public do think less of you because of the psychic's reading.

Still, I think the onus would be on the plaintiff to satisfy the jury that the statement had, in fact, caused damage to his reputation. But if he could show that, e.g., his partner left him because of what the psychic said, and that she had told all her friends about the psychic's reading and they were now spreading the word that he was not a safe person to be around — yeah, I think is would be an actionable defamation. And then, as 28064212 says, the question would arise as to whether the psychic had any kind of defence.

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123557039#Comment_123557039

Would the defamation not be on the part of the partner and her friends then given they are identifying the plaintiff rather than the psychic who doesn't know who they are?

endofrainbow

Unfortunately my crystal ball is in for repair at the moment and I can't read the tea leaves ever since we switched to tea bags.

28064212

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123557167#Comment_123557167

The OP's question was whether the psychic's statement may have been defamatory, not about anybody else's.

But yes, if someone is repeating a defamatory statement, then they too may be open to a defamation action. Although it doesn't automatically follow that if a case against the psychic is successful, subsequent cases against people who repeat the statements will be successful, the details of the case will have a huge effect. For that matter, even if the case against the psychic was unsuccessful, it's still possible for a case against someone else to be successful - again, the exact details of the case are important

_BAA_RAM_EWE

https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2025/06/19/garage-forecourt-drive-offs-without-paying-for-fuel-a-daily-occurrence-court-hears/

What about this? What do ye think of this?

kirving

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123565985#Comment_123565985

Fair enough IMO. If a salesperson came to an agreement that they then reneged on, then they deserve it.

Reminds me of seeing a Circle K employee in Kilmacnogue call the Gards on a guy who realised he forgot his wallet after he had put about €10 IIRC into the tank. 3 Gardai arrive, one looks at the display on the pump, says "what a f-ing waste of time" and wanders into the shop to an irate manager. They customer seemed genuine too tbh.

While this was happening, the staff were visibly pissed off when I insisted on a receipt and the printer kept giving trouble. They call the Gards on that guy for not paying, but then expected me to leave without a receipt…

magicbastarder

My brother once filled the car and got a bar of chocolate while paying for the petrol. It was only the next day when a Garda called to the door that he realised he'd paid for the chocolate and not the petrol; thankfully he'd kept the receipt. I think he's unsure whether he told the cashier which pump he'd used, or whether the cashier had forgotten to charge him.

The Garda thought it was funny anyway and headed off.

But anyway... in that Irish times article - surely based on what was discussed above there was no injury to his good name, if it was only his sister and mother who the gardai talked to, and his mother was fully apprised of what had actually happened. And gardai calling to the door could be for many reasons, it's not as if the neighbours would immediately think he was a criminal - and if that was the case, surely they wouldn't actually know who in the house they were calling to see?

Or does the defamation occur when the filling station staff call the gardai?

28064212

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123565985#Comment_123565985

I'd very much like to read the court's decision (which doesn't appear to have been published yet). On the story reported in the article, it's very difficult to see how the defamation action succeeded. Unless the plaintiff demonstrated that the report to the Gardaí was made with malicious intent, there were any number of defences that the defendant could have raised.

I'm assuming there are significant details that have not been reported, otherwise this is a baffling decision, with severe implications for reporting crime in good faith.

_BAA_RAM_EWE

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123566589#Comment_123566589

where would this be officially published? Ill keep an eye out for it.

28064212

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123567144#Comment_123567144

https://www.courts.ie/search/judgments

But I'm not sure if Circuit Court judgments are published. There seems to be none in June, and only 2 in May

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123566293#Comment_123566293

There doesn't have to be an actual injury to the good name. If the impugned statement tends to injure the reputation in the eyes of right thinking people there is defamation. Saying someone stole something, implies that person is a thief, even if the person who hears the statement knows that they didn't steal the item alleged.

magicbastarder

As I had wondered, and as 28064212 expanded on; does that not endanger the act of reporting something to the gardai when you think a crime might have occurred? When you could end up being sued for defamation?

28064212

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123567692#Comment_123567692

It shouldn't. There are a number of defences which should, on the face of it, have been employed in this case.

It would be different if the judgment was that the cashier deliberately lied about having told the plaintiff when the bill needed to be paid e.g. if they had said "it's grand, pay it tomorrow", while knowing that it would be reported that evening.

But from the report:

the sales lady had told the court that Mr Brooks had been told the debt had to be paid that day

Judge O’Malley Costello said she found Mr Brooks and his mother and sister, and the Circle K sales lady, to have been honest witnesses

So if the judge accepts that the cashier believed the agreement was that the debt had to be paid that day, and then reported the failure to do so in good faith, I can't see how she then found in favour of the plaintiff.

However, court reporting often misses important details, and I believe that must be the case in this instance.

Peregrinus

Possibly the point was that, when the bill was paid the following day, Circle K should have withdrawn their complaint.

The offence that Circle K would be complaining of here is making off without payment. The elements of that offence:

A person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods obtained or any service done is required or expected, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and with the intention of avoiding payment on the spot . . .

By the following day, at the latest, Circle K knew that the offence had not been committed, because someone had called to the garage and paid for the fuel. There was therefore no reason to think that the driver had acted dishonestly or had ever intended to avoid payment.

The initial report, let us suppose, was made in good faith, but as of the following day could not be maintained in good faith.

A reportto the guards of a suspected crime is normally protected by qualified privilege, as long as you make it in good faith and have a subjective belief that it is true. But in this case the driver had come into the shop, had tried to arrange for immediate payment over the phone, and when that wasn't possible had undertaken to have someone come back and settle the bill later. There was evidently a misunderstanding over whether this had to be done the same day or not, but even without that, there was obviously a real possibility even then that no offence was being committed — it was obviously possible that the driver might have been entirely sincere in his efforts and promises about payment. But they made the report anyway.

The following day, when the bill was paid, they should obviously have retracted the report. While there isn't a general duty to retract a defamatory statement that you find out was inaccurate but that you believed at the time, the failure to do so will definitely go against you in defamation proceedings, and I think in this case might have called into question the organisation's good faith in making the report in the first place.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123567938#Comment_123567938

Where there is a conflict on the evidence the Judge has to decide who to believe. She didn't believe the cashier who said that he was told it had to be paid the same day.

28064212

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123572017#Comment_123572017

The report literally says the exact opposite, as stated in the post you quoted:

Judge O’Malley Costello said she found Mr Brooks and his mother and sister, and the Circle K sales lady, to have been honest witnesses

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123572038#Comment_123572038

She said she believed her to be an honest witness as in not calling her a liar but she still didn't believe her.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123572311#Comment_123572311

The report quotes the judge as saying that she found both the witnesses to be honest, but it does not say that she believed him and not her. Nor is there anything in the report which implies that she believed him over her. She didn't need to decide which to of them to believe; once she accepted that they were both honest then there was clearly a genuine misunderstanding between them over when the bill would need to be paid by, and the case could be decided on that basis.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123572762#Comment_123572762

Either the man was told he had to pay the same day or he wasn't. If he was he would lose his case. If he wasn't he would win.
The Judge preferred his evidence. The other witness may have had an honest but mistaken belief so,ething was said.
A judge doesn't have to and often won't call a witness a liar if they don't have to.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123573122#Comment_123573122

No. I've already explained how he could win without his evidence being believed over hers, and you haven't done anything to show that I'm wrong. So how do you know that the judge didn't take my view of the situation?

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123574473#Comment_123574473

If he was told he had to pay the same day and didn't, there would have been justification. He insisted he had an arrangement and he honoured it. The decision was clearly based on believing him.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123574908#Comment_123574908

Sorry, but no. To support the finding of defamation all the judge has to conclude is that the guy did not intend to defraud the Circle K and to find this it's enough for the judge to conclude that there was a honest misunderstanding about the time by which payment must be made. This is possible regardless of which, if either, of the witnesses was incorrect.

Not only would the judge not call a witness a liar if she didn't have to; she wouldn't even conclude that a witness was a liar if she didn't have to. And she didn't have to.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123575227#Comment_123575227

One is that the guy did not intend to defraud, but if it was a condition that he pay on the same day, then he broke the agreement and the shop was justified in complaining to the police. there would have been qualified privilege in those circumstances. If he had an agreement and honoured it, the shop was not justified in complaining and he was defamed.

Since he told the shop from the outset he had forgotten his wallet, the key issue is the arrangement to pay. The judge had to decide what an objective observer hearing the exchange would conclude what had been agreed between the parties themselves. His version was accepted.

That meant the other witness was wrong, whether through mistake or dishonesty.

Peregrinus

No.

First, the newspaper report doesn't actually say that the witnesses contradicted one another on this point. From the newspaper report:

• The filling station attendant said that she told the customer that the debt had to be paid that day.
• The customer said that he made an arrangement for payment the following day.

The newspaper report doesn't say that the customer denied that the attendant had said the debt must be paid that day. What's reported is consistent with, e.g, the attendant saying "you have to pay today" and the customer saying "sorry, that's not going to work; we'll come in tomorrow". It's entirely possible that after a conversation like this the customer leaves genuinely thinking it's understood he will pay tomorrow, and the filling station attendant thinks the customer knows that this will result in a report to the police but also thinks that, despite this, he's not going to pay until tomorrow.

If the attendant said "you must pay today" but understood that he was, in fact, likely to pay tomorrow, then there should have been no report to the police. Circle K did not think the customer intended to defraud them if they expected him to pay the following day, so a report of the "making away without paying" offence was defamatory, and they were not protected by qualified privilege. In general it's not a defence, in a defamation action, to say "I warned you that I was going to defame you". If they thought he was going to pay the following day, they should not have reported the offence until the end of the following day (and then only, obviously, if he hadn't paid).

Secondly, you're overlooking the possibility that the judge took the view that the defamation arose not when the report was made but when it was not withdrawn after the debt was paid.

Either of these would explain the judge's decision without her having to come to any conclusion that the evidence given by the attendant was inaccurate.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123577347#Comment_123577347

There was either an agreement to pay the following day or their wasn't. An agreement is not made subjectively. What the parties might have thought is irrelevant. A court has to decide what a neutral observer, hearing the exchange, would have thought had been agreed.