From today’s Times wrt to Johnny Depp’s libel case against the Sun:
“A defamation action is a civil law claim and can be brought if someone publishes to other people a statement about you which has either caused your reputation serious harm or is likely to cause it serious harm.
There are four possible defences to defamation. Firstly, that the statement about you is true. Secondly, that it was not a statement of fact but an honest opinion. Thirdly, that publication was justified because it was on a matter of public interest, and finally that it was protected by "privilege".
However, defamation actions work differently from many civil actions such as breach of contract, where the burden of proving the "wrong" lies with the person bringing the claim. In defamation, that person has to show that the statement about them has a defamatory meaning - ie that it lowers them in the minds of right-thinking members of society.
"Meaning" is now decided by a judge at an early, pre-trial stage. Many cases settle after the judge has ruled on meaning, but if a claim does go to trial, the burden then lies with the publisher to prove, for example, that the statement was substantially true. This is when the gloves come off and personal reputations and behaviour come under intense scrutiny”
Do we think that the news coverage of the child abuser and rapist has damaged his reputation?
