Defamation - Defences - Offer of Amends & Innocent Dissemination Flashcards
What provides the authority for the defence to defamation of an offer of amends?
ss2-4 Defamation Act 1996.
What are the three key elements of the offer of amends defence to defamation?
- Before serving defence to action, D can elect to make an offer
- If this offer is accepted by C, judicial proceedings cannot be continued, and the offer is contractually binding
- D must: correct and apologise; publish the correction and apology; and offer to pay C compensation.
What is meant by the first requirement regarding the point at which an offer of amends can be made?
The apology must be made before filing a defence claim. An apology can only be effective if the publisher admits they were wrong before filing a defence claim.
What occurs if the claimant accepts the defendants offer of amends?
If the defendant’s offer is accepted, the action stops and damages are agreed by the parties.
What is the key distinction in regards to the defence of innocent dissemination?
A distinction is drawn between those who publish and republish defamatory material, and mechanical distributors.
What three pieces of statutory authority underpin the defence of innocent dissemination?
Section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996.
Section 10 of the Defamation Act 2013.
Section 5 of the Defamation Act 2013.
What does s1(1) of the Defamation Act 1996 provide in regards to innocent dissemination as a defence?
This statute provides that a person will have a defence of innocent dissemination if he was not the author, editor or publisher of the statement complained of, provided they took reasonable care in relation to its publication and did not know, and had no reason to believe, that his action in distributing the statement caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement.
What does s1(3) of the Defamation Act 1996 provide in regards to innocent dissemination as a defence?
This statute essentially precludes persons involved in;
- printing, producing, distributing or selling materials containing the statement
- processing, making, exhibiting or selling audio or electronic materials containing the statement
- operating or providing equipment by which material containing the statement is distributed
- broadcasting live programmes containing the statement (in circumstances in which they lacked control over it)
- operators or providers of communication systems by means of which the the statement is transmitted
From being categorised as the author, editor or publisher of the statement.
What does s10 of the Defamation Act 2013 provide in regards to the defence of innocent dissemination?
This statute provides that a court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action for defamation brought against a person who was not the author, editor or publisher of the statement complained of, unless the court is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable for an action to be brought against the author, editor or publisher.
What defence is provided for, in regards to innocent dissemination, by s5 of the Defamation Act 2013?
This statute provides a defence for a website operator who can show that it was not the operator who posted the statement on the website. However, the wording of the provision limits the scope of this defence.
How does s5 of the Defamation Act 2013 limit the applicability of the defence of innocent dissemination?
The statute provides that the defence is defeated if it is not possible for the claimant to identify the person who posted the statement, if the claimant gave the operator a notice of complaint in relation to the statement, and if the operator failed to respond to the notice of complaint in accordance with any provision contained in regulations.
