Democracy & Justice

I love what he said.

The statement is fair and reasonable.

Democratic practices and fairness require that anyone defamed be given a chance to seek legal redress.

Those who had made "defamatory" statement can defend themselves by providing factual justification or substantiate that they are entitled for qualified privilege.

Statements that would lower someone in the estimation of right thinking member of society is defamatory. If it expose the claimant to hatred, ridicule or contempt, it could be held defamatory even though it did not impute disgraceful conduct or lack of professional skill. Most of all, the defamatory statement must refer to the claimant and that the ordinary sensible reader in the light of the special facts understood the words as referring to the claimant.

The court would apply the objective test, ie, What would right thinking member of society think (see: Byrne vs Dean)

To be defamatory, there are three criteria that must be fulfilled:

1. The statement complained about must be defamatory and refer to the claimant;
2. The statement must lower the claimant in the estimation of right thinking member of society; and
3. The statement must be published.

Authorities as representatives of democratically elected government bodies and statutory corporations are open to uninhibited public criticism and will not be entitled to bring a claim for defamation unless the individual wants to sue in his own name. This principle is to uphold freedom of expression (see:Derbyshire County Council vs Times Newspapers Ltd)

The defenses available to the defendants are:

Justification - that is, true statement of fact and is accurate. The defendant need not prove that each charge is true, as long as the words do not materially injure the claimant's reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charge (see: Alexander vs North Eastern Railway)

Fair Comment - statement made was a fair comment on a matter of public interest is a defence. It must be an opinion that was fair and honest. It must be made without malice. The test: "Is whether the opinion, however, exaggerated, obstinate or prejudiced, was honestly held by the person expressing it (see:Reynolds vs Times Newspapers Ltd).

Qualified Privilege - this is a defense based on public interest. Qualified Privilege is defined as "where a person who makes a communication has an interest or a duty, legal, social or moral, to make it to the person to whom it was made has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it. This reciprocity is essential (see: Adam vs Ward)

Innocent Dissemination - this defense is available to those who have no control and had no reason to suspect there was libel. In Godfrey vs Demon Internet (1999), the court held that the defendants were not authors, editors or publishers but they did not take reasonable care with regard to its publication when they failed to remove it once they knew it was there.

Apology - is not a defense. It will reduce damages claimed. Apology must be offered before defamation action began or as soon as possible afterwards.

Volenti non fit injuria - express or implied consent to the publication.