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.
Showing posts with label Defamation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Defamation. Show all posts
Tuesday, 6 July 2010
Monday, 5 July 2010
Defamation defence part II (draft)
3. A local council's health department investigating an outbreak of food poisoning traces the source to turkeys sold at a supermarket. A press statement issued by the department warns anyone who has bought a turkey from the store not to eat it.
Through a clerical error, the statement gives the name of another supermarket which has nothing to do with the matter. Explain whether the press are liable to this store for defamation.
Answer:
The press are liable to this store for defamation.
According to the Defamation Act 1996, under qualified privilege defence, reports of numerous occasions receive Statutory Qualified Privilege, providing they are:
(a) fair; (b) accurate; (c) published without malice; (d) on a matter of public concern or benefit, and (e) subjected to publication if requested of a reasonable letter or statement by way of explanation or contradiction. Ethically, under the PCC Code, paper should correct significant inaccuracy anyway, even if not to blame.
From the case said above, the press statement issued by the department, it is covered by the qualified privilege defence Schedule 1 Part 2 paragraph 9:
Notice, reports or statements from government departments and bodies performing governmental functions (e.g. local authorities and the police)
However, the statement itself is inaccurate, therefore it is not subject to the requirement of fair and accurate copy and the press are liable to this store of defamation.
5. An MP has fought (both inside and outside parliament) for compensation in cases where former employees at steelworks have contracted cancer since the works closed. The MP issues a brief press statement following an inquest into the death of one of the former steelworkers. In the statement the MP criticises the coroner and says: “The inquest was just a whitewash”.
Is it safe to use the above extract from the statement? Give your reasons in the light of defamation.
Answer:
No, it is not safe to use the above extract from the statement.
According to The Defamation Act 1996 Qualified Privilege Defence Schedule I Part II, public meetings are protected by the part II: bona fide meetings lawfully held for a lawful purpose for the furtherance of discussion of matters of public concern whether admission to the meeting was general or restricted.
If “public meeting” comes within this definition, press conferences are covered, including handouts not read out.
However, press statements are not press conferences, so not covered by qualified privilege, unless the press statements are issued by government department and bodies performing governmental functions. e.g. local authorities and the police.
In this case, the MP is not qualified to issue the press statement according to the requirement, even though what the MP said might be fair, accurate, and without malice.
Therefore, it is not safe to the extract from the statement.
In the case of McCartan Turkington Breen v Times Newspaper Ltd, 2001. The Times had been sued over its report of a press conference called by a group of people (the Clegg Committee) campaigning for the release of a soldier Lee Clegg convicted of murdering a joyrider.
Then during the press conference, defamatory statements were made concerning the solicitors' defence of Private Clegg. On the next day, The Times reported those statements. This led to the libel proceeding by the solicitors of Private Clegg against The Times.
A jury awarded £145,000 damages. But on the appeal, Lord Bingham said that press representatives could be regarded either as member of the public themselves or as 'the eyes and ears of the public to whom they report.'
The court also ruled that a written press release, handed out at the meeting but not read aloud, and reported by the paper, was in effect part of the press conference proceeding.
Through a clerical error, the statement gives the name of another supermarket which has nothing to do with the matter. Explain whether the press are liable to this store for defamation.
Answer:
The press are liable to this store for defamation.
According to the Defamation Act 1996, under qualified privilege defence, reports of numerous occasions receive Statutory Qualified Privilege, providing they are:
(a) fair; (b) accurate; (c) published without malice; (d) on a matter of public concern or benefit, and (e) subjected to publication if requested of a reasonable letter or statement by way of explanation or contradiction. Ethically, under the PCC Code, paper should correct significant inaccuracy anyway, even if not to blame.
From the case said above, the press statement issued by the department, it is covered by the qualified privilege defence Schedule 1 Part 2 paragraph 9:
Notice, reports or statements from government departments and bodies performing governmental functions (e.g. local authorities and the police)
However, the statement itself is inaccurate, therefore it is not subject to the requirement of fair and accurate copy and the press are liable to this store of defamation.
5. An MP has fought (both inside and outside parliament) for compensation in cases where former employees at steelworks have contracted cancer since the works closed. The MP issues a brief press statement following an inquest into the death of one of the former steelworkers. In the statement the MP criticises the coroner and says: “The inquest was just a whitewash”.
Is it safe to use the above extract from the statement? Give your reasons in the light of defamation.
Answer:
No, it is not safe to use the above extract from the statement.
According to The Defamation Act 1996 Qualified Privilege Defence Schedule I Part II, public meetings are protected by the part II: bona fide meetings lawfully held for a lawful purpose for the furtherance of discussion of matters of public concern whether admission to the meeting was general or restricted.
If “public meeting” comes within this definition, press conferences are covered, including handouts not read out.
However, press statements are not press conferences, so not covered by qualified privilege, unless the press statements are issued by government department and bodies performing governmental functions. e.g. local authorities and the police.
In this case, the MP is not qualified to issue the press statement according to the requirement, even though what the MP said might be fair, accurate, and without malice.
Therefore, it is not safe to the extract from the statement.
In the case of McCartan Turkington Breen v Times Newspaper Ltd, 2001. The Times had been sued over its report of a press conference called by a group of people (the Clegg Committee) campaigning for the release of a soldier Lee Clegg convicted of murdering a joyrider.
Then during the press conference, defamatory statements were made concerning the solicitors' defence of Private Clegg. On the next day, The Times reported those statements. This led to the libel proceeding by the solicitors of Private Clegg against The Times.
A jury awarded £145,000 damages. But on the appeal, Lord Bingham said that press representatives could be regarded either as member of the public themselves or as 'the eyes and ears of the public to whom they report.'
The court also ruled that a written press release, handed out at the meeting but not read aloud, and reported by the paper, was in effect part of the press conference proceeding.
Sunday, 4 July 2010
Defamation defence part I (draft)
1. A daily newspaper reporter is attending a trial. By his deadline time, only the prosecution case has been heard. In the law of libel, can his newspaper publish a report at this stage? Give your reasons.
Answer:
The newspaper cannot publish the report at this stage.
The daily newspaper reporter is attending a trial, that means the reporter is reporting court cases. So automatically the journalist enjoys absolute privilege.
For Absolute privilege to apply, according to the Defamation Act 1996, a court case report must be “fair and accurate”. This does not mean that the proceedings must be reported verbatim; a report will still be “fair and accurate” if:
(I)it presents a summary of both side
(ii)it contains no substantial inaccuracies;
(iii) it avoids giving disproportionate weight to one side or the other
Provided it complies other requirement of absolute privilege defence:
(I)accurate (especially charge, names, plea and case continuing)
(II) published contemporaneously (first available edition); and
(III) the report is of judicial proceedings (do not publish defamatory outbursts – they are not protected. Non – defamatory parts of outbursts may be published);
(IV) held in public in the UK (or in European Courts of Justice and Human Rights).
As by the reporter's deadline, only the prosecution case has been heard, he/she is unable to write a balanced copy.
In a case in 2006, (Bennett v Newsquest, see Media Lawyer newsletter, No 64), Mr Justice Eady pointed out that a newspaper story which reported a criminal case and which reported a criminal case and which was the subject of a libel action. He said:
“The report must be fair overall and not give a misleading impression. Inaccuracies in themselves will not defeat privilege. Omissions will deprive a report of privilege if they create a false impression of what took place or if they result in the suppression of the case of part of the case of one side, while giving the other.”
If the report is held to be unfair or inaccurate in any important respect, the media organisation publishing it loses the protection of privilege.
(b). When a defendant charged with a summary offence in a magistrates court takes his place in the dock a man in the public gallery shouts: “He is innocent. The policeman beat him up”. Discuss whether this comment can be used safely in the light of the laws of defamation.
Answer:
The answer's safety depends on the content itself is defamatory or not.
The comment is made during the court proceedings, according to the Defamation Act 1996, it states for absolute privilege to apply, the report is:
of judicial proceedings (not outbursts or interruptions [if people making them are not involved in the case] or reports not read out in court – so do not publish defamatory outbursts – they are not protected. Non – defamatory parts of outbursts may be published);
In general, absolute privilege extends only to the actual report of proceedings held in open court.
It does not protect, for example, defamatory matter shouted out in the court, e.g. from the public gallery by someone who is not part of the proceedings. However, if shouted comment is not defamatory, it can in libel law be reported safely whoever made it.
So in this case, if the shouted content is not defamatory, the paper can publish it safely; but if the content is defamatory, then the paper cannot publish it safely.
2. A reader threatens to sue a newspaper for defamation. The reporter who wrote the feature which contained the alleged defamation says to the Editor. “We've noting to fear. I showed the full feature to the reader before publication because it was a complicated story, he agreed with it and had the chance to reply to the allegations in it about him”.
In the law of defamation, is the reporter correct? The answer must indicate how conclusions are reached.
Answer:
The reporter is incorrect.
The defence in his case is justification. It states:
Justification means truth and applies to statements of fact. To establish this the defendant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, the truth of the words both in substance and in fact, in their natural and ordinary meaning and of every innuendo, inference and imputation that can be reasonably drawn from the words.
The danger of justification defence in this case is though the reporter said he showed the reader before publication (plus the reporter himself/herself even admit it was a complicated story), and it seems the reader agreed with it and had the chance to reply to the allegations in it about him.
However, there is no indication to say the reporter persuaded the witness to sign a written statement at the time and date it. Or such testimony could be an audio-recording of any witness willing to testify against the claimant.
Apart from the danger relevant with the case said above, other dangers of justification defence are (which might apply if the paper is sued on a later stage):
(I)credibility/reliability/availability of witnesses e.g. where there is a time gap.
(II)If stick to defence all the way to trial - greater damages likely to be awarded for aggravation and substantial costs.
(III)Difficult to prove, especially where meaning created by inference or innuendo.
(IV)Sometime may be best financially to settle out of court because of large awards of damages and substantial costs in going to trial.
(V)Uncertainty of outcome – what meaning will the jury find?
Answer:
The newspaper cannot publish the report at this stage.
The daily newspaper reporter is attending a trial, that means the reporter is reporting court cases. So automatically the journalist enjoys absolute privilege.
For Absolute privilege to apply, according to the Defamation Act 1996, a court case report must be “fair and accurate”. This does not mean that the proceedings must be reported verbatim; a report will still be “fair and accurate” if:
(I)it presents a summary of both side
(ii)it contains no substantial inaccuracies;
(iii) it avoids giving disproportionate weight to one side or the other
Provided it complies other requirement of absolute privilege defence:
(I)accurate (especially charge, names, plea and case continuing)
(II) published contemporaneously (first available edition); and
(III) the report is of judicial proceedings (do not publish defamatory outbursts – they are not protected. Non – defamatory parts of outbursts may be published);
(IV) held in public in the UK (or in European Courts of Justice and Human Rights).
As by the reporter's deadline, only the prosecution case has been heard, he/she is unable to write a balanced copy.
In a case in 2006, (Bennett v Newsquest, see Media Lawyer newsletter, No 64), Mr Justice Eady pointed out that a newspaper story which reported a criminal case and which reported a criminal case and which was the subject of a libel action. He said:
“The report must be fair overall and not give a misleading impression. Inaccuracies in themselves will not defeat privilege. Omissions will deprive a report of privilege if they create a false impression of what took place or if they result in the suppression of the case of part of the case of one side, while giving the other.”
If the report is held to be unfair or inaccurate in any important respect, the media organisation publishing it loses the protection of privilege.
(b). When a defendant charged with a summary offence in a magistrates court takes his place in the dock a man in the public gallery shouts: “He is innocent. The policeman beat him up”. Discuss whether this comment can be used safely in the light of the laws of defamation.
Answer:
The answer's safety depends on the content itself is defamatory or not.
The comment is made during the court proceedings, according to the Defamation Act 1996, it states for absolute privilege to apply, the report is:
of judicial proceedings (not outbursts or interruptions [if people making them are not involved in the case] or reports not read out in court – so do not publish defamatory outbursts – they are not protected. Non – defamatory parts of outbursts may be published);
In general, absolute privilege extends only to the actual report of proceedings held in open court.
It does not protect, for example, defamatory matter shouted out in the court, e.g. from the public gallery by someone who is not part of the proceedings. However, if shouted comment is not defamatory, it can in libel law be reported safely whoever made it.
So in this case, if the shouted content is not defamatory, the paper can publish it safely; but if the content is defamatory, then the paper cannot publish it safely.
2. A reader threatens to sue a newspaper for defamation. The reporter who wrote the feature which contained the alleged defamation says to the Editor. “We've noting to fear. I showed the full feature to the reader before publication because it was a complicated story, he agreed with it and had the chance to reply to the allegations in it about him”.
In the law of defamation, is the reporter correct? The answer must indicate how conclusions are reached.
Answer:
The reporter is incorrect.
The defence in his case is justification. It states:
Justification means truth and applies to statements of fact. To establish this the defendant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, the truth of the words both in substance and in fact, in their natural and ordinary meaning and of every innuendo, inference and imputation that can be reasonably drawn from the words.
The danger of justification defence in this case is though the reporter said he showed the reader before publication (plus the reporter himself/herself even admit it was a complicated story), and it seems the reader agreed with it and had the chance to reply to the allegations in it about him.
However, there is no indication to say the reporter persuaded the witness to sign a written statement at the time and date it. Or such testimony could be an audio-recording of any witness willing to testify against the claimant.
Apart from the danger relevant with the case said above, other dangers of justification defence are (which might apply if the paper is sued on a later stage):
(I)credibility/reliability/availability of witnesses e.g. where there is a time gap.
(II)If stick to defence all the way to trial - greater damages likely to be awarded for aggravation and substantial costs.
(III)Difficult to prove, especially where meaning created by inference or innuendo.
(IV)Sometime may be best financially to settle out of court because of large awards of damages and substantial costs in going to trial.
(V)Uncertainty of outcome – what meaning will the jury find?
Sunday, 18 April 2010
Defamation - The Claim (Draft)
1. “Every repetition of a libel is fresh publication” (McNae's 20th edition of Essential Law for Journalists). Give an example of this from legal history.
Answer:
Every repetition is a fresh publication. The journalists is liable for repeating a defamatory statement made by an interviewee or source.
Former West Midlands police officers were accused of fabricating evidence in the Birmingham Six case, but the prosecution of those officers was abandoned, and the sentence convicted was later cleared in an appeal.
After the abandonment of that prosecution, the Sunday Telegraph reported one of the three officers as referring to the Birmingham Six and saying: “In our eyes, their guilt is beyond doubt.”
The Sun newspaper published an article based upon the Sunday Telegraph's interviews. It later carried an apology and was reported to have paid £1 million in damages.
2. A gang has been jailed for various offences and as a result a newspaper is preparing a feature on local crime. With the feature it has a picture of a red-light district in its town.
The picture shows clearly vehicles being driven in a street or being at a kerb with people apparently talking to drivers. People are also walking on a pavement
What legal danger exists in publishing the clear picture and how can it be avoided. The answer must show how conclusion are reached.
Answer:
The legal danger is juxtaposition.
The picture will mislead readers that the kerb is the place where the gang committed a crime. The drivers, people talking to drivers, and other people walking on a pavement, might become victims while the crime committed, but in effect, this might not be the case.
The feature story its self might be accurate, but when juxtaposed with other material then might bear defamatory meaning.
To avoid it, the newspaper needs to get an accurate picture of showing the gang committed a crime or publishing the article without a picture.
3. A dozen inmates of a local prison are staging a roof-top protest.
They are displaying a large banner which reads: “Stop Brutality by governor and staff of D wing” A newspaper publishes a photograph of the protesting prisoners and their banner. Consider any possible legal pitfall.
Answer:
The legal pitfall is as the newspaper only publishes one side of the argument, that is, the prisoners' protest and its banner, without examining whether what they had complained is truthful or not, it might resulted in being sued by an individual member of the local prison service.
It is possible for individual members or officers of the institutions of local or central government to sue.
Though the institution itself, the House of Lords ruled, could not sue for defamation in respect of their “governmental and administrative functions” because this would place an undesirable fetter on freedom of speech.
A judge in the House of Lords said: “A publication attacking the activities of the authority will necessarily be an attack on the body of councillors which represents the controlling party, or on the executives who carry on the day-to-day management of its affairs.
If the individual reputation of any of these is wrongly impaired by the publication any of these can himself bring proceedings for defamation."
In this case, if the allegation is untruthful, the the head of the prison service could sue the newspaper.
4. A reporter hears that a local solicitor “has retired” after many years in practice.
He does not check this rumour, but writes a story which is published saying that the solicitor “has retired”. The rumour turns out to be untrue.
Can the solicitor take any action against the newspaper for libel or under any other law? State your reasons.
Answer:
The solicitor can take action against the newspaper for libel.
Because the reporter published untruthful statement about the solicitor, and will badly affect the solicitor's business.
In this case, though I do not think the reporter had disparaged his/her professional practice, the solicitor can take the newspaper to court because of the false statement.
5. Explain how a photograph or caption, by the context in which it is published could be libellous.
Answer:
If the photograph or caption is juxtaposed with a statement, which stands alone is innocuous, might bear defamatory meaning.
Journalists, particularly for sub-editors and those dealing with production, must take care how picture interact with each other, and with any commentary.
An example on juxtaposition: The magazine Stationery Trade News accurately reported the counterfeiting of some stationery products and named some of those responsible.
A company won huge damages against the magazine because it was named in what the editor considered to be a separate part of the article, dealing with another issue, but the jury found that the allegations could be understood as referring to the claimant company as well.
The copy referring to the claimants, a firm of envelope manufacturers, was sandwiched between the allegations of counterfeiting and the pictures illustrating counterfeiting.
6. (a). What in defamation law is an “inference”?
Answer:
An inference is a statement with a secondary meaning which can b understood by someone without special knowledge who “reads between the lines in the light of his general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs”.
For example, an inference is created if someone says: “I saw the editor leave the pub, and he was swaying and his speech was slurred”.
The inference here is indisputably that the editor was drunk, though the term 'drunk' was not used. But for some statements there may be dispute about whether a defamatory inference was created.
(b) What is meant, in the law of libel, by an innuendo? Give an example.
Answer:
An innuendo is a statement which may seem to be innocuous to some people but which will be seen as defamatory by people with special knowledge.
For example, to say “I saw our editor go into that house on the corner of Sleep Street' would not in itself be defamatory, unless the communication is to someone who has special knowledge that the house is a brothel.
The journalist would be mistaken to believe that use of inference or innuendo is any safer in libel law than making a direct allegation.
7. A reporter travelling on a train a few seats away from a councillor sees that the councillor is unable to produce a valid ticket when approached by an inspector, and is required to pay a penalty fare. The reporter writes a story for his newspaper. It appears under the headline: “Councillor fined for fare dodging”.
Do you consider this a safe headline? If not, give your reasons and write what you consider to be safe headline.
Answer:
I do not think the headline is safe. Although the reporter literally sees the councillor cannot produce a valid ticket, and required to pay a penalty fare by an inspector.
He did not, according to the materials, conduct further investigation why the councillor cannot produce a valid ticket, there might be a different reason instead of the councillor's cheat action. “fare dodging” here I think emphasized councillor's dishonest way to avoid buying ticket.
If the fact turns out not as the story describes, then the councillor can take the reporter to court.
A safer headline might be something like: Councillor fined unable to produce valid ticket.
8. Under the headline “The shame of Oxdown Close” a local newspaper runs a story about partner-swapping by couples living in a cul-de-sac in its area. It does not name any of the couples alleged to be involved, or include any house numbers. A couple who live in the road, and deny any involvement in such behaviour, threaten to sue the newspaper for libel. Consider its position.
Answer:
The couple can take the newspaper to court.
A libel claimant suing over a published statement must prove three things about it: 1) it is defamatory, 2) it may be reasonable understood to refer to him, 3) it has been published to a third person.
The test of 'identification' is whether the words would reasonably lead people who know the claimant to believe he/she was the person referred to.
It is important for the newspaper to state precisely of the house number, names of the couple, occupation, ages. Otherwise a innocent couple, like the ones in this case, might appear in the court to sue the newspaper would have damaged their reputation.
Journalists would be mistaken if they believe they can play safe by not naming the person, but such an omission may prove no defence.
Answer:
Every repetition is a fresh publication. The journalists is liable for repeating a defamatory statement made by an interviewee or source.
Former West Midlands police officers were accused of fabricating evidence in the Birmingham Six case, but the prosecution of those officers was abandoned, and the sentence convicted was later cleared in an appeal.
After the abandonment of that prosecution, the Sunday Telegraph reported one of the three officers as referring to the Birmingham Six and saying: “In our eyes, their guilt is beyond doubt.”
The Sun newspaper published an article based upon the Sunday Telegraph's interviews. It later carried an apology and was reported to have paid £1 million in damages.
2. A gang has been jailed for various offences and as a result a newspaper is preparing a feature on local crime. With the feature it has a picture of a red-light district in its town.
The picture shows clearly vehicles being driven in a street or being at a kerb with people apparently talking to drivers. People are also walking on a pavement
What legal danger exists in publishing the clear picture and how can it be avoided. The answer must show how conclusion are reached.
Answer:
The legal danger is juxtaposition.
The picture will mislead readers that the kerb is the place where the gang committed a crime. The drivers, people talking to drivers, and other people walking on a pavement, might become victims while the crime committed, but in effect, this might not be the case.
The feature story its self might be accurate, but when juxtaposed with other material then might bear defamatory meaning.
To avoid it, the newspaper needs to get an accurate picture of showing the gang committed a crime or publishing the article without a picture.
3. A dozen inmates of a local prison are staging a roof-top protest.
They are displaying a large banner which reads: “Stop Brutality by governor and staff of D wing” A newspaper publishes a photograph of the protesting prisoners and their banner. Consider any possible legal pitfall.
Answer:
The legal pitfall is as the newspaper only publishes one side of the argument, that is, the prisoners' protest and its banner, without examining whether what they had complained is truthful or not, it might resulted in being sued by an individual member of the local prison service.
It is possible for individual members or officers of the institutions of local or central government to sue.
Though the institution itself, the House of Lords ruled, could not sue for defamation in respect of their “governmental and administrative functions” because this would place an undesirable fetter on freedom of speech.
A judge in the House of Lords said: “A publication attacking the activities of the authority will necessarily be an attack on the body of councillors which represents the controlling party, or on the executives who carry on the day-to-day management of its affairs.
If the individual reputation of any of these is wrongly impaired by the publication any of these can himself bring proceedings for defamation."
In this case, if the allegation is untruthful, the the head of the prison service could sue the newspaper.
4. A reporter hears that a local solicitor “has retired” after many years in practice.
He does not check this rumour, but writes a story which is published saying that the solicitor “has retired”. The rumour turns out to be untrue.
Can the solicitor take any action against the newspaper for libel or under any other law? State your reasons.
Answer:
The solicitor can take action against the newspaper for libel.
Because the reporter published untruthful statement about the solicitor, and will badly affect the solicitor's business.
In this case, though I do not think the reporter had disparaged his/her professional practice, the solicitor can take the newspaper to court because of the false statement.
5. Explain how a photograph or caption, by the context in which it is published could be libellous.
Answer:
If the photograph or caption is juxtaposed with a statement, which stands alone is innocuous, might bear defamatory meaning.
Journalists, particularly for sub-editors and those dealing with production, must take care how picture interact with each other, and with any commentary.
An example on juxtaposition: The magazine Stationery Trade News accurately reported the counterfeiting of some stationery products and named some of those responsible.
A company won huge damages against the magazine because it was named in what the editor considered to be a separate part of the article, dealing with another issue, but the jury found that the allegations could be understood as referring to the claimant company as well.
The copy referring to the claimants, a firm of envelope manufacturers, was sandwiched between the allegations of counterfeiting and the pictures illustrating counterfeiting.
6. (a). What in defamation law is an “inference”?
Answer:
An inference is a statement with a secondary meaning which can b understood by someone without special knowledge who “reads between the lines in the light of his general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs”.
For example, an inference is created if someone says: “I saw the editor leave the pub, and he was swaying and his speech was slurred”.
The inference here is indisputably that the editor was drunk, though the term 'drunk' was not used. But for some statements there may be dispute about whether a defamatory inference was created.
(b) What is meant, in the law of libel, by an innuendo? Give an example.
Answer:
An innuendo is a statement which may seem to be innocuous to some people but which will be seen as defamatory by people with special knowledge.
For example, to say “I saw our editor go into that house on the corner of Sleep Street' would not in itself be defamatory, unless the communication is to someone who has special knowledge that the house is a brothel.
The journalist would be mistaken to believe that use of inference or innuendo is any safer in libel law than making a direct allegation.
7. A reporter travelling on a train a few seats away from a councillor sees that the councillor is unable to produce a valid ticket when approached by an inspector, and is required to pay a penalty fare. The reporter writes a story for his newspaper. It appears under the headline: “Councillor fined for fare dodging”.
Do you consider this a safe headline? If not, give your reasons and write what you consider to be safe headline.
Answer:
I do not think the headline is safe. Although the reporter literally sees the councillor cannot produce a valid ticket, and required to pay a penalty fare by an inspector.
He did not, according to the materials, conduct further investigation why the councillor cannot produce a valid ticket, there might be a different reason instead of the councillor's cheat action. “fare dodging” here I think emphasized councillor's dishonest way to avoid buying ticket.
If the fact turns out not as the story describes, then the councillor can take the reporter to court.
A safer headline might be something like: Councillor fined unable to produce valid ticket.
8. Under the headline “The shame of Oxdown Close” a local newspaper runs a story about partner-swapping by couples living in a cul-de-sac in its area. It does not name any of the couples alleged to be involved, or include any house numbers. A couple who live in the road, and deny any involvement in such behaviour, threaten to sue the newspaper for libel. Consider its position.
Answer:
The couple can take the newspaper to court.
A libel claimant suing over a published statement must prove three things about it: 1) it is defamatory, 2) it may be reasonable understood to refer to him, 3) it has been published to a third person.
The test of 'identification' is whether the words would reasonably lead people who know the claimant to believe he/she was the person referred to.
It is important for the newspaper to state precisely of the house number, names of the couple, occupation, ages. Otherwise a innocent couple, like the ones in this case, might appear in the court to sue the newspaper would have damaged their reputation.
Journalists would be mistaken if they believe they can play safe by not naming the person, but such an omission may prove no defence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)