4. What are the defamation dangers in publication of the following story about a TV soap opera in a TV critic's column? (The critic usually features Sailing Down the River Ox at least once a week in his column and has never had a positive thing to say about the award winning soap).
“Frank Wood, not usually known as a gifted actor at the best of times, gave an exceptionally unconvincing performance playing David Roberts in last night's dramatic episode of Sailing when an argument turned into a fight, resulting in David's arrest and Jim Jamieson being admitted to St. Mary's Hospital, Oxdown, with knife wounds. Perhaps Frank was reminded of the nine months he spend in Oxdown Prison twelve years ago, after being convicted of an assault following a similar pub brawl.”
Your answer should explain how your conclusions are reached.
Answer:
According to the defamation defence fair comment, the defence must prove:
The comment is recognisable as comment;
it is based on provably true facts or privileged matter;
sufficiently referred/alluded to, indicated or stated in what is published with the comment – usually set out in the article unless already well-known;
it is an honestly held opinion (ie. What the writer genuinely believe); and
it was on a matter of public interest (including TV, film or restaurant reviews).
The defence can succeed no matter how prejudiced the writer is nor how exaggerated the way in which he expresses his opinion.
The defamation dangers are the following two issues:
Firstly, in the review, the TV critic writes: perhaps Frank was reminded of the nine months he spend in Oxdown Prison twelve years ago, after being convicted of an assault following a similar pub brawl.
The above sentence will confuse readers if this is the true facts or just mocking comment. It is not recognisable as comment.
Secondly, the case indicates that the TV soap is an award-winning programme, which obviously is a good soap that audience enjoy it.
However, the TV critic has never written anything good about it, in this case, the review is not based on provably true facts.
6. After a man is sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of his step-daughter, the local authority sets up, under an Act of Parliament, a public inquiry into the handling of the case by its social services department. Its report is severely critical of some social workers.
Discuss he local newspaper's legal position when:
(a) reporting the evidence of the inquiry;
(b) reporting the inquiry's findings
(c ) commenting on the case after publication of the report
The answer must indicate how conclusions are reached in the light of the defamation.
Answer:
(a) reporting the evidence of the inquiry:
According to The Defamation Act 1996, under Qualified Privilege Defence Schedule I Part II, proceedings of public inquiry, local inquiry or tribunal set up under statutory powers and held in public are covered by the qualified privilege defence.
Reporting the evidence of the inquiry is part of reporting the proceeding, therefore, if provided all the defence's requirements were met – fair; accurate; published without malice; and on a matter of public concern or benefit. Then the local newspaper is safe to publish the story.
(b) reporting the inquiry's findings:
According to the same Act and under Qualified Privilege Defence Schedule I Part II, the inquiry's findings are not covered by it, it is the proceedings to be covered.
Therefore, even if provided all the defence's requirements were met – fair; accurate; published without malice; and on a matter of public concern or benefit, the paper is not safe to publish the findings.
(c) commenting on the case after publication of the report:
The comment can be defended by the fair comment defence, which applies to comments/opinions only. The defendant must prove:
(I)the comment is recognisable as comment;
(II)it is based on provably true facts or privileged matter;
(III)sufficiently referred/alluded to, indicated or stated in what is published with the comment – usually set out in the article unless already well-known;
(IV)it is an honestly held opinion (ie. What the writer genuinely believe); and
(V)it was on a matter of public interest (including TV, film or restaurant reviews).
The defence can succeed no matter how prejudiced the writer is nor how exaggerated the way in which he expresses his opinion.
Therefore, as long as the comment meets above requirements, then it will be published safely.
It is the fair comment defence which protects the expression of opinion contained in reviews of, among other things, performances, books, holidays, and restaurants.
In the Irish News restaurant review case, the defence was dealt a blow when a libel jury in Northern Ireland awarded £25,000 damages to the owner of a restaurant called Goodfellas over an unfavourable review in the Irish News. But the award was quashed on appeal in 2008, with the Northern Ireland Chief Justice, Sir Brian Kerr, saying:
Only if the jury has a clear understanding of what is capable of constituting comment, can it address the thorny issue of whether the facts on which comment is based are capable of justifying the comment made.
He said that the jury had been misdirected, but that the court's task had been made more difficult by the confusion generated by the Irish News in portraying statements of comment in the article as facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment