nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Onus of Proof and Libel

Hobart

This is a hypothetical situation

A new message board has started up in Dublin. I am mildly aware of it, but I do not become a member. Some weeks later it is brought to my attention that a communication between two people on the MB alledge that I am a paedophile. I'm obviously very upset about this and I look into the matter. It turns out that a number of my peers have also seen this allegation. I decide to take some legal action and a case is brought against the hosting web site and the original poster. We go to court, and the original poster puts forward a defence of justification. So here are my questions:

1) Am I presumed wronged in this scenario?
2) Is it up to me to prove that I am not a paedophile?
3) Is the burden of proof always on the plaintiff, in cases of libel where a defence of justification is put forward?
4) Is it correct that when the allegations where initially posted on this website, that I was prima facie defamed?
5) Is there any scenario with an alleged libel such as this, that the onus of proof is on the alleged defamed person? i.e. Do I have to prove that I am not a paedophile?
6) Does the court assume that all defamatory statments are presummed to be false from the outset?

Thank you for your answers in advance.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

EducatedGuess

The Libel Reform Bill refused to change the stance of burden of proof in Libel cases, the committee stated that they were not convinced that the onus of proof needed to be changed. It depends on the gounds of justification, if it went to court your counsel would be aware of the argument for justification under discovery. Under Libel Law the onus of proof is on the publisher/editor/newspaper [whatever meduim]. The author will have to prove that you are paedophile, in civil cases it is generally reversed, the burden of proof lies in the prosecution in criminal cases.

Hobart

EducatedGuess wrote:

The Libel Reform Bill refused to change the stance of burden of proof in Libel cases, the committee stated that they were not convinced that the onus of proof needed to be changed. It depends on the gounds of justification, if it went to court your counsel would be aware of the argument for justification under discovery. Under Libel Law the onus of proof is on the publisher/editor/newspaper [whatever meduim]. The author will have to prove that you are paedophile, in civil cases it is generally reversed, the burden of proof lies in the prosecution in criminal cases.

Thank you for your answers.

So, just to clarify, the burden of proof is not always on the plaintiff?

dermot_sheehan

Hobart wrote:

This is a hypothetical situation

A new message board has started up in Dublin. I am mildly aware of it, but I do not become a member. Some weeks later it is brought to my attention that a communication between two people on the MB alledge that I am a paedophile. I'm obviously very upset about this and I look into the matter. It turns out that a number of my peers have also seen this allegation. I decide to take some legal action and a case is brought against the hosting web site and the original poster. We go to court, and the original poster puts forward a defence of justification. So here are my questions:

1) Am I presumed wronged in this scenario?
2) Is it up to me to prove that I am not a paedophile?
3) Is the burden of proof always on the plaintiff, in cases of libel where a defence of justification is put forward?
4) Is it correct that when the allegations where initially posted on this website, that I was prima facie defamed?
5) Is there any scenario with an alleged libel such as this, that the onus of proof is on the alleged defamed person? i.e. Do I have to prove that I am not a paedophile?
6) Does the court assume that all defamatory statments are presummed to be false from the outset?

Thank you for your answers in advance.

You have to prove that the words are defamatory (i.e. they lower you in the eyes of right thinking members of society), the defence has to prove that the defamatory words are true if they raise justification as a defence.

Since the words were published, you were libelled and you get damages regardless of whether you suffered any particular loss. If the words were spoken, slander, then you'd have to prove you suffered specific damage unless the words accused you of committing an offence punishable by death or imprisonment.

Hobart

gabhain7 wrote:

You have to prove that the words are defamatory (i.e. they lower you in the eyes of right thinking members of society), the defence has to prove that the defamatory words are true if they raise justification as a defence.

Since the words were published, you were libelled and you get damages regardless of whether you suffered any particular loss. If the words were spoken, slander, then you'd have to prove you suffered specific damage unless the words accused you of committing an offence punishable by death or imprisonment.

Cheers,

so in a case where justification is used by the defence it is up to them, the defence, to prove that what they said is correct, and not the plaintiff.

I thought as much.

EducatedGuess

I think the defendant only needs to prove that the remarks or statements made were under a consideration of information given or that led the defendant to believe that remarks be true. i.e. the plaintiff in whatever action is not an actual peadophile but did somehtihing to lead the defendant to beileve he was, therefore their remarks would be justified. Still libel though and extends to communications of an electronic nature.

Hobart

EducatedGuess wrote:

I think the defendant only needs to prove that the remarks or statements made were under a consideration of information given or that led the defendant to believe that remarks be true. i.e. the plaintiff in whatever action is not an actual peadophile but did somehtihing to lead the defendant to beileve he was, therefore their remarks would be justified. Still libel though and extends to communications of an electronic nature.

Thanks again for your reply.

maidhc

http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/01/06/libel-laws-in-ireland/

is a nice synopsis of the law.

hullaballoo

It seems I forgot to take my pills this morning, and had a little outburst there. Apologies to Hobart.

Imstandingup

Irish libel law encompasses a presumption of falsity. What is said is automatically presumed to be false and the only time the truth of the matter will come into play is if the defence plead the defence of justification. What the plaintiff needs to illustrate is that the statement was in fact published, that it was said about him and that it lowered him in the eyes of right thinking members of society or caused him to be held up to hatred, ridicule or contempt or caused him to be shunned by right thinking members of society. Normally evidence will be given by the plaintiff's wife/friend/another witness in your case one of your peers. Generally the defence would not be raised in this instance, it's pretty much not an issue as it would be impossible to prove that you are a paedophile unless you have previous convictions in that regard. In addition the defence of justification, when pleaded unsuccessfully usually results in an award of further damages arising out of the court's disapproval of the defence persisting in the lie. Legal aid is not available in defamation actions so if you're impecunious you may have trouble bringing the action at all and you might just have to grin and bear it.

NUTLEY BOY

Generally, the plaintiff carries the onus of proof and defamation actions are no different.

The plaintiff must prove that the words complained of are defamatory in character.

Consder various defamation actions here where plaintiffs have lost because they did not convince the juries on the facts of the cases.

Victor

NUTLEY BOY wrote:

The plaintiff must prove that the words complained of are defamatory in character.

I think we can accept that calling someone a paedophile is prima facie defamatory in character.