89444
Descrição
FlashCards por Maria O'Dempsey, atualizado more than 1 year ago
|
Criado por Maria O'Dempsey
mais de 11 anos atrás
|
|
| Questão | Responda |
| Legal Action | CAN BE SUED BY: Individual, legal entity, un/trading body corporate -Officers/organisation even if not named -Incorporated associations -Local/central govt cannot sue over (1993) CLAIMANT MUST PROVE: -Defamatory statement -Reasonably understood to be about them -Published to third person DOES NOT HAVE TO PROVE: -Statement is false -Intention -Specific damage only tends to -ID of claimant TEST: reasonably led persons acquainted believe person referred to CASE STUDY: Police Federal cases 1980/90s unnamed officers -95 actions £1.5m |
| Dangers | -Library pictures -Innocent parties: defamatory statement true of one party not all -Publication defamatory -Every repetition is defamatory -Keep evidence for 1 yr: 1996 Defamation Act (7 ROI) |
| Defences | 1)Justification 2)Fair comment 3)Privilege 4)Accord & satisfaction 5)Offer of Amends |
| Absolute Privilege | -Reports of open court in UK, EU court of justice, EUCHR, UN court -Fair, accurate & contemporaneous -Hansard |
| Qualified Privilege | -Statements & events -Reports of Hansard -Important facts known in public interest -Fair, accurate & published w/out malice -Official police statement, council meetings -Editor MUST publish reasonable statement CASE STUDY: Daily Sport damages to acquainted PC for not publishing defence |
| Rehabilitation of Offenders | -Removes privilege from mention of spent convictions |
| Justification | -Complete defence: words are substantially true -Except rehabilitation of offenders act 1974 -Persuade jury facts true on 'balance of probability' CASE STUDY: 1994 Gillian Taylforth vs Sun A1 romp incident. Taylforth lost & paid £500.000 |
| Fair Comment | -Factually based -Only comments published about court cases/inquests -Labelled as comment -Must rely on facts stated in story Honest opinion w no malice -Imputing improper motive |
| Defamation | -Protects individuals moral +professional reputation from unjustified attack -Hard to contest -Damages set by jury -High legal costs |
| Defamation Law | -Take professional advice before publishing something that could lead to defamation actions PERMANENT: Libel, images, TV/Radio TRANSIENT: Slander EXCEPTIONS: Broadcasting Act 1990 JURY RULES DEFAMATORY: -Hatred, contempt, ridicule -Cause to be shunned/avoided -Lower in eyes of right thinking members of society -Disparage in business, trade, office or profession DIFFICULT: -Tends to: no actual evidence of doing it -No definition of 'reasonable man' up to jury -Can be innocuous mention -Words/images must be read in full context: proofing complete page/s surrounding, headlines/images close by -Innuendo |
Quer criar seus próprios Flashcards gratuitos com GoConqr? Saiba mais.