Civil cases look at liability, not at guilt, so the presumption of innocence isn't relevant in a civil case. The point in this case is how and why it came to be included by the claimants and if that was justified.
I think its now 3 times Ive posted this...it shows that in a civil case for defamation the accused are entitled to the presumption of innocence. This is from the ECHR website...it proves conclusively that i am right an you are wrong..
Ruokanen and Others v. Finland
6 April 2010
The applicants were an editor-in-chief and a journalist and a publishing company. They
complained about their conviction of defamation following publication of an article stating
that a student had been raped in September 2000 by members of a baseball team at a
party to celebrate their victory in the Finnish championship. The applicants had been
ordered to pay over 80,000 euros in damages to compensate each member of the
baseball team.
The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression)
of the Convention, finding that the domestic courts had struck a fair balance between the
competing interests involved, i.e. the applicants’ right to freedom of expression and the
right to reputation of the alleged perpetrators of a crime. It observed in particular that
imperatives other than matters of public concern had to be weighed up before an
incident was reported by the media to the public as fact.
The right to presumption of
innocence and reputation of third parties was of equal importance especially where
serious accusations of sexual misconduct were concerned
www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Reputation_ENG.pdf. page 11
ReplyQuoteNotify
Its about time you accepted you are wrong
