Zusammenfassung der Ressource
Honest Comment
- Honest Comment
- Public Interest
- Relates to a comment as to the claimant or their conduct
- Comment is only acceptable if:
- It is in the public's interest
- It relates to a matter submitted for public review and comment
- (Spiller v Joseph)
- Determined on what the judge feels the public has an interest in knowing
- (London Artists v Littler)
- True Facts
- Must be an opinion
- There must be sufficient indication of the facts
- (Kemsley v Foot)
- Must be formed on true facts, but the statement does not have to be true, just objectively honestly held
- (Reynolds v Times Newspapers)
- Comment must indicate the facts on which it is based, explicitly or implicitly
- (Spiller v Joseph)
- Decision for the judge to determine whether it is a comment
- Decision for the jury to determine whether it is in fact comment
- Defendant aided by Defamation Act 1952, Section 6
- Honestly Held
- An objective test
- "Would any fair man, however prejudiced he may be or however exaggerated or obstinate his view, have said that..."
- (Merrivale v Carson)
- Jury must decide whether the defendant genuinely held that view and was not motivated by malice
- Spite and animosity would merely be evidence to support such an assertion
- (Cheng v Tse Wai)
- Evidence of malice will defeat the defence
- (Thomas v Bradbury Agnew & Co. Ltd.)
- Malice refers to a lack of genuine belief in the statement
- Where the comment is honestly held then the court will not find malice
- (Bransen v Bower (No. 2))
- "The true test is whether the opinion, however exaggerated, obstinate or prejudiced, was honestly held by the person expressing it"
- (Reynolds v Times Newspapers)