A basic defence to a defamation lawsuit is the accuracy of the claimed remark. Regardless of how a remark affects the plaintiff’s reputation, it cannot be considered defamatory under defamation law if it can be demonstrated to be real. The legal proverb “truth is the best defence” embodies this idea.
Importance of Truth
In defamation proceedings, the importance of the truth stems from the basic right to free speech. As long as statements are truthful, people should be free to share their thoughts and report the facts without worrying about facing legal consequences, according to the law. This argument is especially important when dealing with issues of public interest, such as reporting on public people, business activities, or government actions.
Evidence of Truth
The defendant must provide reliable proof of the statement’s accuracy in order to successfully raise the truth defence. This could include:
Documentary Evidence: Documents such as emails, contracts, official records, and other written items can be used to verify the accuracy of the statement.
Witness Testimonies: Those who can attest to the validity of the claim could offer insightful testimony in favour of the defence.
Expert Opinions: Expert analysis might occasionally be required to verify the statement’s factual foundation, especially in specialised industries like economics, physics, or medicine.
The argument that the alleged statement is an opinion rather than a factual statement is a vital line of defence against defamation lawsuits. Since opinions are a form of free expression, they are typically protected under UK law.
It can be difficult to distinguish between an opinion and a fact when a remark is made, and it frequently depends on the language that is used and the communication setting. Usually, courts take into account the following elements:
Language Used: Subjective wording in statements, like “I believe” or “In my opinion,” increases the likelihood that the statement will be understood as an opinion.
Context: The classification of a statement can also be influenced by the larger context in which it was made. Statements expressed in a review or commentary, for instance, are typically regarded as opinions.
The opinion defence is strong, but it is not infallible. Defamation allegations may still be made against an opinion even if it presents inaccurate information or is presented in an untruthful way. As a result, it’s crucial to make sure that any comments shared aren’t founded on inaccurate or misleading facts.
Legal privilege may apply to some remarks, releasing the speaker from defamation responsibility in certain situations. This argument is especially important in situations where the right to free speech is crucial to society’s operation, like court cases, legislative discussions, or media coverage.
Within the context of defamation law, privilege falls into two main categories:
Absolute Privilege: This covers remarks made in certain settings, including meetings of parliament or court cases. Regardless of the content of the words made, people in these situations are not subject to defamation lawsuits.
Qualified Privilege: This includes remarks made under certain conditions, like reports of public meetings or internal interactions within organisations, that are made sincerely and without malice. The defendant must show that the statement was made with a valid purpose and that the plaintiff’s reputation was not intended to be harmed in order to effectively use qualified privilege.
It is essential to demonstrate that the comment is within the bounds of protected speech in order to effectively use the privilege argument in opposition to a defamation lawsuit. This could include:
Demonstrating the Context: Clearly stating the context of the statement’s making and its importance to the general public’s interest.
Proving Good Faith: Demonstrating that the remark was expressed freely and sincerely and that the speaker thought it to be accurate.
A plaintiff may be ineligible to pursue a defamation lawsuit if they approved the allegedly offensive statement’s publication. The significance of the parties’ relationship and the circumstances surrounding the declaration are emphasised by this defence.
Implicit or explicit consent are both possible. An individual gives their explicit consent when they sign a release or agreement, for example, or when they agree to the publication of a statement. It is possible to deduce implicit consent from a person’s statements or actions, which show that they understood and approved of the statement’s publishing.
The plaintiff must be able to show that their consent was freely provided and that they were aware of its implications in order to successfully invoke the consent defence. This defence may be especially successful in the following situations:
Media Coverage: If public personalities or companies actively participate in media coverage agree to have their actions covered or discussed, they may have less grounds for a defamation lawsuit.
Interpersonal Relationships: If both parties were aware of the consequences of their discussions, statements made in the context of personal relationships might also be covered by the consent defence.
The opinion defence, which emphasises the freedom to voice opinions on subjects of public importance, and the defence of fair comment are closely associated. This defence is especially relevant to reporters, commentators, and anybody debating controversial topics.
In order for the defendant to effectively raise the fair comment defence, they need to show:
Comment on a Matter of Public Interest: The remark needs to address a public-relevant subject, including current affairs, social concerns, or well-known individuals.
Honest Opinion: Even if the statement is critical or challenging, it must be an honest perspective. The defendant’s expression of their opinion could not have been motivated by malice or bad faith.
Basis in Fact: Even though the conclusion reached is subjective, the opinion still needs to be supported by information. This implies that the assertion ought to have a solid foundation in reality.
The fair comment defence draws attention to the harmony between the right to free expression and the preservation of people’s reputations. It acknowledges the possible harm that can result from making libellous remarks while promoting open discussion and conversation.
A thorough knowledge of the several legal defences available is essential when defending against a defamation lawsuit. Our goal at Adam Bernard Solicitors is to provide our clients the confidence they need to handle these challenging circumstances. Using any combination of the truth defence, opinion defence, privilege, consent, or fair comment, our skilled staff will put in endless effort to safeguard our clients’ credibility and make sure their opinions are heard.
Whether you are seeking common defences for defamation claims in UK law or need legal strategies to defend against defamation lawsuits in the UK, we encourage you to get in touch with us for individualised legal counsel tailored to your particular situation.
Copyright © 2023 Adam Bernard Solicitors. This Firm is Authorised & Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority SRA NO: 598171, 656730.
