Defamation
A statement will not
be defamatory merely because it is hurtful or upsetting to a person. It must
affect their reputation in a damaging way.
Very simply, defamation is
to spread bad reports about someone which could do them harm. You can defame
someone if you write or say something about them which damages their reputation
in the eyes of right thinking individuals which makes people want to avoid them
or which hurts them in their work or profession or cause them financial
loss. In more defined terms, defamation
(also calumny, vilification and traducement) is the communication of a false
statement that harms the reputation of an individual person, business, group,
government, religion or groundless criticism. It is usually regarded as irrational
unprovoked criticism, which has little or no discrimination against a
particular organization, individual or nation etc.
The Defamation Act 2014
reforms aspects of the law of defamation. The civil law on defamation has
developed through common law over a number years periodically being
supplemented by stature, most recently the Defamation Act 1952 and the
defamation Act 1996.
Under common law, to give
legal form to defamation a claim must generally be false and have been made to
someone other than the person defamed. There are two different versions of
defamation these are known as libel and slander. The difference between libel
and slander is that libel is the written word whilst slander is the spoken
word.
With the development of the
press libel became the most widespread form of defamation. When broadcasting
was introduced, most legal systems decided to treat radio and television like
the press and apply the laws of libel to them even though there word are
spoken.
The three main defenses
against defamation are:
-Fair comment
-Justification/truth
-Qualified privilege
If an individual is
defamed, then he or she has a right to damages for the injury to reputation, as
the purpose of the tort is to vindicate and protect reputation. Courts do not
only look at the literal meaning of a defamatory publication, but also consider
what the ordinary reader or viewer could have understood the publication to
mean. This may be different from what the plaintiff intended or what the
defendant understood.
Modern libel and slander
laws, as implemented in many (but not all) Commonwealth nations as well as in
the United States and in the Republic of Ireland, are originally descended from
English defamation law. The history of defamation law in England is somewhat
obscure; civil actions for damages seem to have been relatively frequent as far
back as the reign of Edward though it is unknown whether any generally
applicable criminal process was in place.
Example of Defamation:
The Frankie Boyle Libel
Case
After the High Court jury
found that the Daily Mirror had libeled Frankie Boyle by calling him a racist
comedian, the sweary coming won £54,650 in damages. Boyle, 40 said the paper
had defamed him with an article published on the 19th of July 2011 however
Daily Mirror publisher Mirror Group Newspapers defended the piece ''on the
basis of truth and fair comment'' however jurors ruled in favor of Boyle.
Racism originally meant a
belief in racial supremacy and racial hatred but has broadened to include
''belief in racial difference'' and also ''prejudice, dislike or
discrimination''
''The term “racist
comedian” in particular evokes images of 1970s comedy where the humor was
genuinely nasty, the aim being to demean and humiliate minorities.
Boyle’s jokes weren’t like
that at all. For instance, he used the word “Paki” in a sketch about
Afghanistan, but although some people might laugh at the forbidden word, the
joke was about the different value the British media places on the lives of
Britons and Afghans. Boyle is someone who makes the occasional joke about race,
not a racist comedian.''
The comedian said The Daily
Mirror newspaper had misunderstood the context of his use of language in his
jokes, adding the accusation of racism ''goes against everything I’ve tried to
do in my work, to do in my life''. Boyle argues in court, its all about context: "If I dressed up as Godilla, people would not accuse me of wanting to crush Tokyo myself". Mirror Group Newspapers also found to their cost that Boyle could be charged with all sorts but racism shouldn't be one - they say "there is a difference between Boyle using the word "nigger" when making a joke about the Ministry of Defence and Bernard Manning insulting "Paki" routines from the 1970s: Boyle is making a satirical point about British foreign policy whilst Mannings routines were reductive, unreconstructed and - despite Manning pointing to black members of his audience - based on prejudice". Frankie Boyle won the after the jurys verdict on an article that described his as a "racist comedia". Jurors awarded the comedian a further sum over the claim in the article that he was "forced to quit" the BBC2 show Mock the Week. After Boyle won his case he said he would donate the money to charity.
The case involved a large amount of public interest. The Daily Mirror publisher Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) defended the article made on Frankie Boyle saying that the "racist" description was either true or "honest comment on a matter of public interest". The MGN made the statement believing that it is interest to the public, affecting the rights of the people.
The case involved a large amount of public interest. The Daily Mirror publisher Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) defended the article made on Frankie Boyle saying that the "racist" description was either true or "honest comment on a matter of public interest". The MGN made the statement believing that it is interest to the public, affecting the rights of the people.
Furthermore, the comedian's humor has
often proved controversial with audiences.
Last year, broadcasting
watchdog Ofcom upheld more than 500 complaints about his Channel 4 show
Tramadol nights, during which he joked about model Katie Price's disabled son,
Harvey. In 2008, the BBC apologized when Boyle made a joke about Palestine on
the Radio 4 comedy show Political Animal. A year after that, BBC Two's Mock The
Week was criticized by the BBC Trust over comments Boyle made on the show about
swimmer Rebecca Aldington’s appearance.
Contempt of Court
Contempt of court occurs when somebody is deemed to have interfered with the administration of justice.
The primary function of the Contempt of Court Act is to protect the integrity of active court proceedings. A strict liability rule is introduced by the Act. Under this rule any conduct that interferes with the course of the justice can be treated as contempt of court even when there was no intention to interfere. When someone interferes with the administration of justice, it will result in justice itself not being properly carried out - it is for this reason that contempt of court is seen as such a serious offence and which results in possible prison sentences - the maximum prison sentence in the UK is 2 years but the law is becoming increasing difficult to enforce due to the worldwide nature of the media. By committing contempt of court you are betraying the entire justice system.
In order to understand when you are at risk of contempt, you need to understand when proceedings are active. The main stage of proceedings in a crime are as follows; the crime itself, arrest or a warrant of arrest, charge, trial magistrates the crown, jury deliberations, verdict, sentence or acquittal.
The are two types of Contempt of Court:
A direct contempt is an act that occurs in the presence of the court and is intended to embarrass or engender disrespect for the court. Shouting in the courtroom or refusing to answer questions for a judge or attorney under oath is a direct contempt. Swearing in court, being loud, noisy, disruptive, abusing the judiciary/court staff is all seen as a direct contempt of court.
Indirect contempt occurs outside the presence of the court, but its intention is also to belittle, mock, obstruct, interrupt, or degrade the court and its proceedings. Attempting to bribe a district attorney is an example of an indirect contempt. Publishing any material that results in a contempt charge is an indirect contempt. Other kinds of indirect contempt include preventing process service, improperly communicating to or by jurors, and withholding evidence.
An example of what could constitute contempt of court would be revealing somebody’s identity that had been protected by the courts. A number of high profile celebrities have recently used super injunctions to prevent the press publishing stories about them.
When a super injunction has been granted, the judge has clearly felt that the individual’s privacy should be protected and therefore has granted the injunction. If a particular newspaper were to then publish a story naming the individual with the benefit of the super injunction, then they could be deemed to be in contempt of court and face possible imprisonment
Example of Contempt of Court
Jurors Jailed for Two Months for Contempt of Court After One Posted A Comment on Social Media
In July of 2013, Kasim Davey, 21, wrote a strongly-worded Facebook message during the trial of a man for sex offences. The juror was found guilty of interfering with the administration of justice by discussing a case he was trying at Wood Green crown Court on Facebook, saying he "always wanted to f**k up a paedophile and now i'm within the law" but denied it when asked by the judge. He was discharged from the jury. Meanwhile Joseph Beard, 29, was also jailed for two months for contempt after using the internet to research the case he was sitting on as a juror at Kingston Crown Court in Surrey and then told members of the jury about it.
A judge at Wood Green Crown Court was alerted and Davey was discharged last December from the retrial of Adam Kephalas, who was later convicted of sexual activity with a child.
Beard was found to be guilty of contempt by using the internet to research the case he was on. The jury was trying two men accused of conspiracy to defraud and money laundering last year.
The men were sentenced at the High Court in central London for conduct likely to interfere with the administration of justice, after prosecution brought by Attorney General Dominic Grieve.
The Attorney said:
"Jurors who use the internet to research a case undermine justice. It creates a risk that the defendant will be convicted or acquitted, not on the evidence, but on unchallenged and untested material discovered by the juror."
"Equally, the case of Kasim Davey shows that jurors must follow the directions given to them by the trial judge not to discuss the case outside the jury room, including discussions and posts on the internet."
After the attorney general was given permission to bring the cases earlier this year, Davey and Beard were summoned to the High Court where two judges heard the evidence against them before deciding whether they were guilty.
Public Interest is anything affecting the rights, health or finances of the public at large. In terms of this case, in relation to the contempts committed by the two jurors, there is also a need to ensure that the laws and procedures strike a balance between the public interest in the administration of justice, the defendant’s right to a fair trial, and the rights of the jurors concerned.
Reporting Restrictions
The key aims of reporting restrictions is to prevent the publication of material which might predjudice a fair trial by influencing jurors to think that a defendant might be guilty. Some cases are automatically protected however some are decided on a case-by-case basis. Automatic protection includes;-
Proceedings under the Childrens Act - proceedings under the childrens act means the they must not broadcast anything which is likely to identify any child as being involved in such proceedings. If these restrictions can be lifted or varied the Section 39 Orders prevents the identification of under-18s involved in proceedings before an adult court.
Victims of Sexual Offences - Young victims of rape and other serious sexual offences will have automatic anonymity subject to the provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. Young witnesses to such offences do not receive this protection and so therefore it is at the discretion of the court to make an order under section 39 CYPA 1933.
Prelim hearings in Magistrates Court - A number of rules automatically restrict what can be said in certain early hearings in both the magistrates’ and the crown court. These rules do not apply to reporting trials in the crown court and the magistrates’ court. The courts also have discretion to lift these restrictions depending on the circumstances of the case, including on the application of the media.
-
The laws that restrict the reporting of legal proceedings are numerous and varied. Many relate to the identification of children and the victims of sexual offences. In most cases, courts will order that children who are the subject of or who are witnesses in proceedings and, also, the victims of sexual offences cannot be identified. The restrictions are designed to limit publication of any information that might prejudice a subsequent jury trial, so prevent the reference, for example, to any of the evidence in the case and previous convictions.
-
Courts have the power, even in relation to proceedings in open court, to order that certain material, including the names of parties, should be kept secret from the public sitting in court and, where that is the case, also from any media reporting of the case.
Example of Reporting Restrictions
James Bulger
James Patrick Bulger, 2 years old, was a boy from Kirkby, Merseyside, England, who was murdered on 12 February 1993, at the age of two. He was abducted, tortured and murdered by two ten-year-old boys, Robert Thompson (born 23 August 1982) and Jon Venables (born 13 August 1982). Bulger disappeared from the New Strand Shopping Centre in Bootle, while accompanying his mother. His mutilated body was found on a railway line two-and-a-half milesaway in Walton, Liverpool, two days after his murder. Thompson and Venables were charged on 20 February 1993 with Bulger's abduction and murder.
The pair were found guilty on 24 November 1993, making them the youngest convicted murderers in modern English history.
Following the sentencing of Venables over child pornography charges, Mr Justice Bean reiterated the view of the courts that revealing his new identity risked endangering his life. But some media groups argued the reporting restrictions were draconian and an affront to the principle of open justice.
The judge did relax reporting restrictions on naming the region, Cheshire, where Venables lived at the time he was recalled to prison in March this year, as well as the probation service that was supervising him. But Bean reiterated that the reporting restrictions to protect Venables' new identity, his address before he was recalled to prison, his whereabouts now, and his appearance, still stand and are permanent.
However when the two were found guilty, the judge Mr Justice Moreland decided to lift reporting restrictions and their identities were made public.
Contempt of Court
Contempt of court occurs when somebody is deemed to have interfered with the administration of justice.
The primary function of the Contempt of Court Act is to protect the integrity of active court proceedings. A strict liability rule is introduced by the Act. Under this rule any conduct that interferes with the course of the justice can be treated as contempt of court even when there was no intention to interfere. When someone interferes with the administration of justice, it will result in justice itself not being properly carried out - it is for this reason that contempt of court is seen as such a serious offence and which results in possible prison sentences - the maximum prison sentence in the UK is 2 years but the law is becoming increasing difficult to enforce due to the worldwide nature of the media. By committing contempt of court you are betraying the entire justice system.
In order to understand when you are at risk of contempt, you need to understand when proceedings are active. The main stage of proceedings in a crime are as follows; the crime itself, arrest or a warrant of arrest, charge, trial magistrates the crown, jury deliberations, verdict, sentence or acquittal.
The are two types of Contempt of Court:
A direct contempt is an act that occurs in the presence of the court and is intended to embarrass or engender disrespect for the court. Shouting in the courtroom or refusing to answer questions for a judge or attorney under oath is a direct contempt. Swearing in court, being loud, noisy, disruptive, abusing the judiciary/court staff is all seen as a direct contempt of court.
Indirect contempt occurs outside the presence of the court, but its intention is also to belittle, mock, obstruct, interrupt, or degrade the court and its proceedings. Attempting to bribe a district attorney is an example of an indirect contempt. Publishing any material that results in a contempt charge is an indirect contempt. Other kinds of indirect contempt include preventing process service, improperly communicating to or by jurors, and withholding evidence.
An example of what could constitute contempt of court would be revealing somebody’s identity that had been protected by the courts. A number of high profile celebrities have recently used super injunctions to prevent the press publishing stories about them.
When a super injunction has been granted, the judge has clearly felt that the individual’s privacy should be protected and therefore has granted the injunction. If a particular newspaper were to then publish a story naming the individual with the benefit of the super injunction, then they could be deemed to be in contempt of court and face possible imprisonment
Example of Contempt of Court
Jurors Jailed for Two Months for Contempt of Court After One Posted A Comment on Social Media
In July of 2013, Kasim Davey, 21, wrote a strongly-worded Facebook message during the trial of a man for sex offences. The juror was found guilty of interfering with the administration of justice by discussing a case he was trying at Wood Green crown Court on Facebook, saying he "always wanted to f**k up a paedophile and now i'm within the law" but denied it when asked by the judge. He was discharged from the jury. Meanwhile Joseph Beard, 29, was also jailed for two months for contempt after using the internet to research the case he was sitting on as a juror at Kingston Crown Court in Surrey and then told members of the jury about it.
A judge at Wood Green Crown Court was alerted and Davey was discharged last December from the retrial of Adam Kephalas, who was later convicted of sexual activity with a child.
Beard was found to be guilty of contempt by using the internet to research the case he was on. The jury was trying two men accused of conspiracy to defraud and money laundering last year.
The men were sentenced at the High Court in central London for conduct likely to interfere with the administration of justice, after prosecution brought by Attorney General Dominic Grieve.
The Attorney said:
"Jurors who use the internet to research a case undermine justice. It creates a risk that the defendant will be convicted or acquitted, not on the evidence, but on unchallenged and untested material discovered by the juror."
"Equally, the case of Kasim Davey shows that jurors must follow the directions given to them by the trial judge not to discuss the case outside the jury room, including discussions and posts on the internet."
After the attorney general was given permission to bring the cases earlier this year, Davey and Beard were summoned to the High Court where two judges heard the evidence against them before deciding whether they were guilty.
Public Interest is anything affecting the rights, health or finances of the public at large. In terms of this case, in relation to the contempts committed by the two jurors, there is also a need to ensure that the laws and procedures strike a balance between the public interest in the administration of justice, the defendant’s right to a fair trial, and the rights of the jurors concerned.
Reporting Restrictions
The key aims of reporting restrictions is to prevent the publication of material which might predjudice a fair trial by influencing jurors to think that a defendant might be guilty. Some cases are automatically protected however some are decided on a case-by-case basis. Automatic protection includes;-
Proceedings under the Childrens Act - proceedings under the childrens act means the they must not broadcast anything which is likely to identify any child as being involved in such proceedings. If these restrictions can be lifted or varied the Section 39 Orders prevents the identification of under-18s involved in proceedings before an adult court.
Victims of Sexual Offences - Young victims of rape and other serious sexual offences will have automatic anonymity subject to the provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. Young witnesses to such offences do not receive this protection and so therefore it is at the discretion of the court to make an order under section 39 CYPA 1933.
Prelim hearings in Magistrates Court - A number of rules automatically restrict what can be said in certain early hearings in both the magistrates’ and the crown court. These rules do not apply to reporting trials in the crown court and the magistrates’ court. The courts also have discretion to lift these restrictions depending on the circumstances of the case, including on the application of the media.
-
The laws that restrict the reporting of legal proceedings are numerous and varied. Many relate to the identification of children and the victims of sexual offences. In most cases, courts will order that children who are the subject of or who are witnesses in proceedings and, also, the victims of sexual offences cannot be identified. The restrictions are designed to limit publication of any information that might prejudice a subsequent jury trial, so prevent the reference, for example, to any of the evidence in the case and previous convictions.
-
Courts have the power, even in relation to proceedings in open court, to order that certain material, including the names of parties, should be kept secret from the public sitting in court and, where that is the case, also from any media reporting of the case.
Example of Reporting Restrictions
James Bulger
James Patrick Bulger, 2 years old, was a boy from Kirkby, Merseyside, England, who was murdered on 12 February 1993, at the age of two. He was abducted, tortured and murdered by two ten-year-old boys, Robert Thompson (born 23 August 1982) and Jon Venables (born 13 August 1982). Bulger disappeared from the New Strand Shopping Centre in Bootle, while accompanying his mother. His mutilated body was found on a railway line two-and-a-half milesaway in Walton, Liverpool, two days after his murder. Thompson and Venables were charged on 20 February 1993 with Bulger's abduction and murder.
The pair were found guilty on 24 November 1993, making them the youngest convicted murderers in modern English history.
Following the sentencing of Venables over child pornography charges, Mr Justice Bean reiterated the view of the courts that revealing his new identity risked endangering his life. But some media groups argued the reporting restrictions were draconian and an affront to the principle of open justice.
The judge did relax reporting restrictions on naming the region, Cheshire, where Venables lived at the time he was recalled to prison in March this year, as well as the probation service that was supervising him. But Bean reiterated that the reporting restrictions to protect Venables' new identity, his address before he was recalled to prison, his whereabouts now, and his appearance, still stand and are permanent.
However when the two were found guilty, the judge Mr Justice Moreland decided to lift reporting restrictions and their identities were made public.
Social media has had a huge impact on law in journalism over the past two decades of its uprising. What makes social media of particular interests to journalism is how it has become influential as a communicating and news breaking tool. News consumption today is not the same as pre-internet news when people tune in to events happening around the world through 24-hour television news channels. More recently, a growing number of readers, viewers and listeners are going online for their news. Television, newspapers and radio are still here but there is a growing competition from interactive online media. New media technology is also having a serious effect because of its impact on established journalism. The way that public and commercial media means that it transforms the news media into a more open, trustworthy and useful forum for information and debate. As news becomes non-linear and open-sourced, journalism will change and is changing.
Social media networks such as Facebook and Twitter as well as web applications like blogs and
Google have changed the news industry and the journalism practice inside out. They present
possibilities and at the same time a high risk for errors. The challenges social media and
web have thrown to news managements and journalists have been like nothing seen before.
Barriers to entry have been lowered since anyone with a laptop, iPhone or Blackberry can be their own
publisher. They can blog, tweet or facebook it anytime, anywhere.
What makes social media of particular interest to journalism is how it has become influential as a
communication and news-breaking tool. In June 2009, the U.S. State Department asked Twitter to
delay scheduled maintenance on the service because it was being used by protesters angered by the
results of Iran's disputed presidential election. In July 2009, a Twitter user in Indonesia beat most
major news companies by tweeting about the Jakarta bombings.
As the ever changing development of technology has grown it has caused the rise of citizen journalists. Citizen journalists are based upon public citizens laying an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analysing and disseminating news and information. Social media site Twitter has specifically caused an impact on the legal side of journalism. Twitter has quickly become an important tool for journalists.When breaking news occurs in any part of the world, users quickly agree on a tag that organizes the material comprising a hash mark and a short word. Once you have the “hashtag”, you can then use Twitters search engine to filter out everything but those tweets that are intending to comment on or report on a news event.
Bibliography
BBC - Editorial Guidelines - Guidelines - Section 18: The Law - Other reporting restrictions
BBC.CO.UK
BBC - Editorial Guidelines - Guidelines - Section 18: The Law - Other reporting restrictions
In-text: (Bbc.co.uk)
Bibliography: Bbc.co.uk,. 'BBC - Editorial Guidelines - Guidelines - Section 18: The Law - Other Reporting Restrictions'. N.p., 2015. Web. 10 Feb. 2015.
WebsiteBBC Academy - Journalism - Defamation
BBC.CO.UK
BBC Academy - Journalism - Defamation
In-text: (Bbc.co.uk)
Bibliography: Bbc.co.uk,. 'BBC Academy - Journalism - Defamation'. N.p., 2015. Web. 9 Feb. 2015.
WebsiteWhat is defamation? definition and meaning
BUSINESSDICTIONARY.COM
What is defamation? definition and meaning
In-text: (BusinessDictionary.com)
Bibliography: BusinessDictionary.com,. 'What Is Defamation? Definition And Meaning'. N.p., 2015. Web. 9 Feb. 2015.
WebsiteReporting Restrictions - Children and Young People as Victims, Witnesses and Defendants: Legal Guidance: Crown Prosecution Service
CPS.GOV.UK
Reporting Restrictions - Children and Young People as Victims, Witnesses and Defendants: Legal Guidance: Crown Prosecution Service
In-text: (Cps.gov.uk)
Bibliography: Cps.gov.uk,. 'Reporting Restrictions - Children And Young People As Victims, Witnesses And Defendants: Legal Guidance: Crown Prosecution Service'. N.p., 2015. Web. 10 Feb. 2015.
WebsiteReporting Restrictions - Children and Young People as Victims, Witnesses and Defendants: Legal Guidance: Crown Prosecution Service
CPS.GOV.UK
Reporting Restrictions - Children and Young People as Victims, Witnesses and Defendants: Legal Guidance: Crown Prosecution Service
In-text: (Cps.gov.uk)
Bibliography: Cps.gov.uk,. 'Reporting Restrictions - Children And Young People As Victims, Witnesses And Defendants: Legal Guidance: Crown Prosecution Service'. N.p., 2015. Web. 10 Feb. 2015.
WebsiteWhat is contempt of court? - Crime and Justice
FINDLAW.CO.UK
What is contempt of court? - Crime and Justice
In-text: (Findlaw.co.uk)
Bibliography: Findlaw.co.uk,. 'What Is Contempt Of Court? - Crime And Justice'. N.p., 2015. Web. 10 Feb. 2015.
WebsiteCourts and Tribunals Judiciary | Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts
JUDICIARY.GOV.UK
Courts and Tribunals Judiciary | Reporting Restrictions in the Criminal Courts
In-text: (Judiciary.gov.uk)
Bibliography: Judiciary.gov.uk,. 'Courts And Tribunals Judiciary | Reporting Restrictions In The Criminal Courts'. N.p., 2014. Web. 9 Feb. 2015.
Website
LECTLAW.COM
In-text: (Lectlaw.com)
Bibliography: Lectlaw.com,. N.p., 2015. Web. 10 Feb. 2015.
WebsiteContempt of court | Law | The Guardian
THE GUARDIAN
Contempt of court | Law | The Guardian
In-text: (the Guardian)
Bibliography: the Guardian,. 'Contempt Of Court | Law | The Guardian'. N.p., 2015. Web. 10 Feb. 2015.
Websitepreliminary hearing | UK Criminal Law Blog
UKCRIMINALLAWBLOG.COM
preliminary hearing | UK Criminal Law Blog
In-text: (Ukcriminallawblog.com)
Bibliography: Ukcriminallawblog.com,. 'Preliminary Hearing | UK Criminal Law Blog'. N.p., 2014. Web. 10 Feb. 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment