Defamation Flashcards
Introduction?
FOE guaranteed by A40.6.1 “right of citizens to express freely their conviction’s & opinions”
Article 40.3.2 mandates state to protect citizens good names
Lrd Nicholls in Reynolds emphasised lasting damage on individuals reputation.
Reforms?
Newspaper industry pushed for defamation law reform, claiming it hindered legitimate reporting
LRC & LAVGD reccomended, incorporating into the 2009 act
Tort defined in S6(2) as publication by any means of defamatory statement concerning a person to one or more
Elements of Defamation: making of statement?
S(2) defines as including oral/ written/ images/ sounds / gestures.
Defamatory statement one that “injures a persons reputation in the eyes of RM of society”
Reynolds v Molocco 1999 (Gay Bachelor)
Waters v Independant Star (seedy relationship)
False Innuendo?
Innuendo can read between lines of statement & garner another meaning
Campbell v Irish Press 1955 (snooker table)
True Innuendo?
Innocent on its face may be defamatory in light of certain facts
McAlpine v BBC 2013
Position when linked to unrelated statement?
C follows Alderson B view from Chalmers v Payne 1835:
Bane & antidote must be taken together
McGarth v Independent newspapers 2004 (terrorism)
Christie v Tv3 2015
Element of Defamation: Concerning a person?
P must be readily identifiable
Test set out in S6(3) “concerns a person if could reasonably be understood to refer to him / her”
Berry v Irish Times (secretary DOJ)
However P need not be named. Test RM
Sinclair v Gogarty (Jews)
Defamation elements: publication to person other than P?
Communication to 3rd party
Monson v Tussauds
Defences: Truth?
S16: if D can prove statement true in all material respects
Alexander v NE Rail 1865 (jail time)
Crawford v Todd 1941 (gambling den)
Defence obliges D to prove truth
If statement true does not harm P because corrects false reputation
McPherson v Daniel’s 1829
Defence: Absolute privilege?
Occurs when law prioritizes public interest & free speech
Eg: parliament/ court / spouses
Macauley v Wyse-Power (scathing remarks protected)
However lower courts could lose immunity if they act beyond jurisdiction (Desmond & Mcd Management)
Defence: Qualified privilege?
Recognises privileged communication in situations where reciprocal interest
Outlined in S18, hinges on concept of duty which can be legal / moral/ social
Principle ensures communication made in good faith protected (Reilly v Gill)
Serves common convenience & welfare of society (Toogood v Spring)
Exception to qualified privelage: Malice?
S19: QP forfeited if D acted with Malice
S19(2): mistaking someone as interested party does not constitute malice
Coleman v Keanes 1946 (accused theft)
Crititicised in McCormack v Olsthoorn 2004
🔑 Hardiman noted need for realistic allowances, disagreeing with strict interpretation, highlighting importance of reasonable belief
Defamation Defense: Honest opinion?
S20(1) requires D prove opinion honestly held
To successfully plead, D must demonstrate comment was matter of public interest, distinguishable as opinion than fact, fair & honest
Honest Opinion: Public Interest?
2: Public affairs related to government & artistic works presented to public
Lord Denning: matters of PI affect people broadly allowing fair comment
For D to succeed statement must be genuinely held as opinion, based on established facts & deemed fair
Convery v Irish news 2008 (restaurant review)
Honest opinion: Fair & Reasonable Publication?
2009 Act introduced new defense for publications after Reynolds
Outlined in S26, aligns more closely with Hoffman approach
To succeed, D must prove statement made in good faith regarding matter of public importance & publication fair & reasonable
