UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: John on July 12, 2014, 12:25:40 PM
-
So if someone posts that Suspectman is guilty as hell and adds "in my opinion" then according to English Law that does not constitute a libel?
-
So if someone posts that Suspectman are guilty as hell and adds "in my opinion" then according to English Law that does not constitute a libel?
Where did you get that?
-
So if someone posts that Suspectman are guilty as hell and adds "in my opinion" then according to English Law that does not constitute a libel?
That would not be a defence to libel.
-
That would not be a defence to libel.
That's what I was wondering, unless it's embedded somewhere in the new Defamation Act that I haven't yet read.
According to the Carter-Ruck source, which may or may not be up to date:
Simply to make an allegation and add 'allegedly' or 'it has been alleged' will not in itself protect someone from a libel complaint, as readers will usually still understand there to be some truth in the allegation being made.
-
The mccanns sought an out of court settlement with Bennett and still easily won the case...it is quite usual to seek out of court settlement in libel cases. They probably thought that as amarals position was so weak he would accept
-
So if someone posts that Suspectman are guilty as hell and adds "in my opinion" then according to English Law that does not constitute a libel?
By English law, yes it does (amount to libel).
Opinion in English law is a statement that cannot be quantified or specified.
Straight insults such as you are an idiot to not count as defamation by English law. One person's idiot might be another person's genius
Only words that can be factually tested as true or untrue may (or may not) be counted as defamation.
-
Repeating the libel of another person is also libel. Allegedly and In My Opinion don't count then either.
-
I don't really see the relevance of UK law. Wouldn't PT law be more so?
-
What is the difference between libel/slander and malicious falsehood?
In malicious falsehood the claimant must prove:
the words are false;
the words were published maliciously; and
special damage has flowed from their publication unless the publication falls within certain criteria.
The words need not be defamatory, but they must be false.
If you put it about that someone has retired (even if untrue), that would not be defamation, because people do no generally think ill of the retired.
But if the person is actually self-employed, and your purpose in putting about that they have retired is to deprive them of trade because no longer offer them business, thinking they are retired, that would be malicious falsehood (not my example, but I thought it brought out the distinction with defamation rather well)
-
The mccanns sought an out of court settlement with Bennett and still easily won the case...it is quite usual to seek out of court settlement in libel cases. They probably thought that as amarals position was so weak he would accept
No idea what the truth of that is. Whichever party sought a settlement (IFF this has been corroborated as factual), it would have to be lodged by the plaintiff in any case, wouldn't it?
-
The mccanns sought an out of court settlement with Bennett and still easily won the case...it is quite usual to seek out of court settlement in libel cases. They probably thought that as amarals position was so weak he would accept
As far as I am aware Bennett was convicted of breaking certain undertakings he had agreed to, not libel per se.
As far as I am aware the McCanns have never won a libel case.
-
As far as I am aware Bennett was convicted of breaking certain undertakings he had agreed to, not libel per se.
the undertakings were made as part of an out of court settlement when he was accused of libel....
-
the undertakings were made as part of an out of court settlement when he was accused of libel....
He was accused of libel however libel was never proven.
-
Judge Tugendhat said that inferences could be taken from certain supposedly innocuous remarks, and that he had understood those inferences to be present.
-
As far as I am aware Bennett was convicted of breaking certain undertakings he had agreed to, not libel per se.
As far as I am aware the McCanns have never won a libel case.
The McCanns have only ever pursued one libel case.
It is going through the Portuguese courts now.
-
The McCanns have only ever pursued one libel case.
It is going through the Portuguese courts now.
Not true.
The Express case wasn't heard in court but the McCanns certainly pursued them for libel.
-
Not true.
The Express case wasn't heard in court but the McCanns certainly pursued them for libel.
Yeah!
I forgot about the English press ...
-
He was accused of libel however libel was never proven.
most libel cases never go to court......it is fairly clear in the uk if libel has been committed...
-
most libel cases never go to court......it is fairly clear in the uk if libel has been committed...
Maybe logically but not legally.
-
Maybe logically but not legally.
you are strawclutching
-
you are strawclutching
In what way ?
-
both the express and Bennett libelled the mccanns...the fact they both settled out of court is meaningless
-
both the express and Bennett libelled the mccanns...the fact they both settled out of court is meaningless
Libel has to be proved in a court of law. That hasn't happened in any of the cases the McCanns have pursued.
-
Libel has to be proved in a court of law. That hasn't happened in any of the cases the McCanns have pursued.
it doesn't.....the definition of libel is quite clear...you are strawclutching
-
it doesn't.....the definition of libel is quite clear...you are strawclutching
The UK press settled out of court because they knew they were on a hiding to nothing defending actions in court the McCanns were always guaranteed to win.
-
The UK press settled out of court because they knew they were on a hiding to nothing defending actions in court the McCanns were always guaranteed to win.
That may be ferryman but it doesn't change the fact that libel was not established in that or any of the other cases the McCanns have decided to pursue.
-
That may be ferryman but it doesn't change the fact that libel was not established in that or any of the other cases the McCanns have decided to pursue.
Libel was established by definition
-
Libel was established by definition
By definition ? What exactly does that mean ?
Libel has to be established in a court of law. The Express may have thought that they would be found guilty of libelling the McCanns and therefore settled out of court but that is not the same as libel actually being established.
-
That may be ferryman but it doesn't change the fact that libel was not established in that or any of the other cases the McCanns have decided to pursue.
What?
Try stating a fact, then boasting about it.
-
By definition ? What exactly does that mean ?
Libel has to be established in a court of law. The Express may have thought that they would be found guilty of libelling the McCanns and therefore settled out of court but that is not the same as libel actually being established.
No it doesn't.
Because if what you say were correct, libel would be the default assumption wherever there are no court proceedings.
There is no such default assumption.
-
No it doesn't.
Because if what you say were correct, libel would be the default assumption wherever there are no court proceedings.
There is no such default assumption.
I think you are arguing on the wrong side?
-
I think you are arguing on the wrong side?
OK, absence of libel would be the default assumption wherever there are no court proceedings.
That isn't the case.
-
OK, absence of libel would be the default assumption wherever there are no court proceedings.
That isn't the case.
So you are saying libel is the default assumption?
I.e. Guilt is the default assumption?
-
So you are saying libel is the default assumption?
I.e. Guilt is the default assumption?
The classic definition of libel is statements proven untrue that lower reputation.
In England there is no requirement to prove statements untrue.
In Portugal (I think) there is.
In either country, where statements that lower reputation are proven untrue, libel is established.
The only (potential) complicating factor is where person wrongly accused doesn't have a reputation to defend.
If you were to accuse Peter Sutcliffe of stealing sweets from a corner shop when he was a lad, there would be no libel, be the allegation true or false, because Sutcliffe's reputation is in ruins anyway.
Amaral, similarly.
He has a criminal conviction for lying and for covering up for torture ...
The McCanns have a clean reputation that has been unjustly shreded.
-
The British Media in question accepted their guilt, and pleaded guilty by doing so.
-
So you are saying libel is the default assumption?
I.e. Guilt is the default assumption?
absolutely
-
The classic definition of libel is statements proven untrue that lower reputation.
In England there is no requirement to prove statements untrue.
In Portugal (I think) there is.
In either country, where statements that lower reputation are proven untrue, libel is established.
The only (potential) complicating factor is where person wrongly accused doesn't have a reputation to defend.
If you were to accuse Peter Sutcliffe of stealing sweets from a corner shop when he was a lad, there would be no libel, be the allegation true or false, because Sutcliffe's reputation is in ruins anyway.
Amaral, similarly.
He has a criminal conviction for lying and for covering up for torture ...
The McCanns have a clean reputation that has been unjustly shreded.
the libelled person does not have to prove anything...on this you are totally wrong
-
a definition of libel.....
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
if someone publishes a defamation regarding me they have committed libel...I can demand damages without court proceedings.. the person has to pay me compensation......The person can agree to pay or can go to court to reduce damages or defend his statments
-
Of course it does. Dave can I suggest that you pick your battles a little more carefully. Arguing against something that is patently true is not only a waste of time but also rather boring for the reader.
If you read my post re the definition of libel you will see that you are once more wrong
-
the libelled person does not have to prove anything...on this you are totally wrong
I think you miss the distinction between having to prove and proving.
Whether you have to or not, it's a definite bonus if you can.
-
I think you miss the distinction between having to prove and proving.
Whether you have to or not, it's a definite bonus if you can.
no one accused of libel has to prove anything......lord mcalpine did not have to prove he was not a paedophile
-
its all about libel...
the mccanns proved with Bennett when they originally allowed him to settle without asking him for a penny
-
its all about libel...
the mccanns proved with Bennett when they originally allowed him to settle without asking him for a penny
Do you think the McCanns would be happy if they won their case but were awarded, say 1 euro?
-
its all about libel...
the mccanns proved with Bennett when they originally allowed him to settle without asking him for a penny
Why worry about all the financial information then?
-
Do you think the McCanns would be happy if they won their case but were awarded, say 1 euro?
yes
-
Why worry about all the financial information then?
why should amaral profit from a libellous book
-
Do you think the McCanns would be happy if they won their case but were awarded, say 1 euro?
I don't know what Dave's answer to that would be, but I think the McCanns would welcome a definitive judicial statement that Amaral's book is a work of fiction, lies and defamation more than they would a sizable monetary settlement.
In many ways (I think) there would be a delicious irony in Amaral waltzing into the sunset clutching a sizable proportion of his ill-gotten-gains.
Amaral would be seen to have kept hold of what he cares about most (his cash) while having surrendered all his principles (on the extremely generous assumption that he had any principles in the first place) ...
-
Do you think the McCanns would be happy if they won their case but were awarded, say 1 euro?
I would think they would be quite happy with that outcome, yes, provided the rest of Amaral's assets made off the back of their daughter were used to pay his court fees and not to buy himself another diamond earring.
-
I would think they would be quite happy with that outcome, yes, provided the rest of Amaral's assets made off the back of their daughter were used to pay his court fees and not to buy himself another diamond earring.
What a pathetic comment.
The rank hypocrisy of criticizing Amaral, for something they have done themselves.
...and as a brief reminder the mccanns aren't 'searching', SY are supposed to be 'searching', so what is the point of the fund ?
-
Back on topic, according to the McCann's English libel lawyers Carter Ruck...
There are three main defences available to a defendant in a libel action; namely, justification, fair comment and privilege.
1) Justification
The defence of justification, or truth, is a complete defence to a libel action. The onus is on the defendant to prove that the allegations are true.
Whilst the defendant does not, necessarily, have to prove the truth of each and every fact, he does have to prove the truth of the substance of the allegation, the defamatory 'sting'.
Even if a defendant is unable or unwilling to prove that the allegations are substantially true, he may nonetheless be able to defend the claim if he can show that it was fair comment or protected by privilege.
2) Honest comment
The defence of honest comment (formerly known as 'fair comment' until the Supreme Court judgment of Joseph v Spiller [2010] UKSC 53) applies only to expressions of opinion, rather than to statements of fact.
A restaurant or theatre review is a classic example of a publication which may be protected by honest comment, although this defence may apply in a variety of different situations.
To succeed in the defence of honest comment the defendant must show that the comment:
* is on a matter of public interest;
* is recognisable as comment, as distinct from an allegation of fact;
* is based on facts which are true (or protected by the defence of privilege);
* is on a matter which has been expressly or implicitly put before the public for judgment, or is otherwise on a matter with * * which the public has a legitimate concern; and
* must explicitly or implicitly indicate, at least in general terms, the facts on which it is based (i.e. what it is that has led the commentator to make the comment). Previously, the facts had to be identified sufficiently so as to enable the reader to judge for himself how far the comment was well founded, but following Joseph v Spiller this is no longer the case.
If the claimant can show that the comment was actuated by malice (meaning that the defendant was not expressing his genuine opinion) the defence of honest comment will be defeated. It is not enough, however, to show that the comment was prejudiced, exaggerated or 'unfair' so in practice it can be difficult to prove that the commentator acted 'maliciously'.
www.carter-ruck.com/Media%20Law/Questions_And_Answers.asp
-
So if someone posts that Suspectman is guilty as hell and adds "in my opinion" then according to English Law that does not constitute a libel?
Not read the rest of the thread.
But wrong.
-
Oops.
Amnesia.
I had read the rest of the thread, but had just forgotten about it ...
-
both the express and Bennett libelled the mccanns...the fact they both settled out of court is meaningless
Mr Bennett's most serious transgression was contempt of court.
In the McCann's position I too would have taken him back to court. There is little point in obtaining a judgement that one party will not observe and the other party will not enforce.
-
Clearly there is a defense against an action of libel.
The defence of honest comment applies only to expressions of opinion, rather than to statements of fact.
To succeed in the defence of honest comment the defendant must show that the comment:
* is on a matter of public interest;
* is recognisable as comment, as distinct from an allegation of fact;
-
Clearly there is a defense against an action of libel.
The defence of honest comment applies only to expressions of opinion, rather than to statements of fact.
To succeed in the defence of honest comment the defendant must show that the comment:
* is on a matter of public interest;
* is recognisable as comment, as distinct from an allegation of fact;
What are we discussing? UK or PT libel law?
-
What are we discussing? UK or PT libel law?
This thread relates to UK libel law.
-
This thread relates to UK libel law.
Ah, ok. That isn't clear from the title, which currently is: Re: So what constitutes a libel? Any takers?
-
Topic: So what constitutes a libel? Any takers?
Would this not be defined in The Defamation Act of 2013?
-
Alas I have broken a forum rule and did not provide a link.
I crave forgiveness from the Higher Authorities.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/contents/enacted
-
Mr Bennett's most serious transgression was contempt of court.
In the McCann's position I too would have taken him back to court. There is little point in obtaining a judgement that one party will not observe and the other party will not enforce.
his comtempt of court was to repeat libel. there would have been no court order had he not committed libel in the first place
-
his comtempt of court was to repeat libel. there would have been no court order had he not committed libel in the first place
There was no libel trial against Tony Bennett. He was badgered by Carter Ruck into signing a court order but the McCanns never took him to court for libel. Now, why is that? I would have thought that they would have done so.
As for the Express papers handing over money, that never saw the inside of a court room either. Later, during the Leveson hearings, one of the witnesses for the Express (I think David Pilditch) stated that, although they paid to the McCanns, all their articles proved to be true accounts of the investigation, confirmed by the released official police files.
BTW, in Portugal, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove libel and in this trial, the McCanns must prove that the book caused them damages.
-
his comtempt of court was to repeat libel. there would have been no court order had he not committed libel in the first place
How does this materially affect the sense and substance of my post? Is your post merely an adjunct to mine?
-
his comtempt of court was to repeat libel. there would have been no court order had he not committed libel in the first place
That is my understanding as well.
-
That is my understanding as well.
No court gave a verdict that Tony Bennett was guilty of libel, it's that simple. It's easy to bully someone into signing an undertaking. Just the threat of a libel trial, even if the defendent knew he was innocent, is enough to scare anyone, least of all, for financial reasons. The legal costs would be very high even if he won.
-
No court gave a verdict that Tony Bennett was guilty of libel, it's that simple. It's easy to bully someone into signing an undertaking. Just the threat of a libel trial, even if the defendent knew he was innocent, is enough to scare anyone, least of all, for financial reasons. The legal costs would be very high even if he won.
There wasn't a hope in hell that he would have won a libel trial. He could have stopped his spoutings before it got to the stage of choosing to sign the undertakings and he could have stopped once he had. He chose not to.
-
Bennett is an irrelevance and a very foolish man.
This is so!
-
No court gave a verdict that Tony Bennett was guilty of libel, it's that simple. It's easy to bully someone into signing an undertaking. Just the threat of a libel trial, even if the defendent knew he was innocent, is enough to scare anyone, least of all, for financial reasons. The legal costs would be very high even if he won.
Bennett wasn't bullied into anything, he cut his own throat!
21 February 2013
Madeleine McCann contempt case: Tony Bennett guilty
Tony Bennett has pledged never to speak about the McCanns in public again
A man who claims he is campaigning to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann has been convicted of contempt of court at the High Court in London.
Tony Bennett was found to have breached an earlier court undertaking not to publish allegations linking Madeleine's parents with her disappearance.
Bennett, who is behind the Madeleine Foundation, was given a three-month prison sentence, suspended for a year.
He was also ordered to pay Kate and Gerry McCann's court costs.
Bennett, 65, of Harlow in Essex, was found to have breached on at least 13 occasions the undertaking not to publish allegations linking the couple, from Rothley in Leicestershire, with their daughter's disappearance.
'Last resort'
The breaches included letters he wrote to Home Secretary Theresa May and Prime Minister David Cameron, which Bennett posted on the internet.
Mr Justice Tugendhat said the retired solicitor had deliberately flouted the order and that his conduct was so serious that nothing less than a custodial sentence would suffice.
Finding Bennett guilty of contempt of court, the judge said: "I am sure that he intended to allege that the claimants are to be suspected of causing the death of their daughter, and did in fact dispose of her body, lie about what happened and covered up what they had done."
After the hearing, Bennett said: "I'm sorry for the distress I've caused to them - I'm hoping the way forward will result in both of us drawing a line under the situation."
Bennett apologised to Kate and Gerry McCann for the distress he had caused
Adrienne Page QC, representing the McCanns, had previously said there was no complaint about Bennett writing the letters.
She said: "The complaint is the publication to the world at large."
Clarence Mitchell, the McCann family spokesman, said: "Kate and Gerry McCann brought these committal proceedings very much as a last resort.
"Mr Bennett has pursued an incessant campaign against them, repeatedly making false accusations against them.
"Concerned for the effect that Mr Bennett's campaign may have on the ongoing search for their daughter and the likelihood of new leads coming forward, the McCanns concluded they had little choice but to seek the court's intervention.
"The McCanns continue to focus their efforts on the ongoing search for their daughter Madeleine."
Madeleine disappeared in May 2007 in Praia da Luz on the Algarve, days before her fourth birthday.
In July 2008 the Portuguese attorney general said there was no evidence linking her parents to any crime.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21534603
From the man himself
In November 2012, lawyers for the McCann family went to the High Court to argue that Bennett was not abiding by the terms of his undertaking and was continuing to spread false allegations against them. Bennett, in an interview with the Harlow Star, said that he still had valid arguments and that "Britain's libel laws are so oppressive that I had no alternative but to agree to the terms of the formal undertakings set out by the McCanns' lawyers in November 2009".[37] Bennett was found guilty ofcontempt of court (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court) and, on 21 February 2013, given a three-month suspended prison sentence (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspended_sentence) and ordered to pay the McCanns' court costs.[38] The court had considered 13 representative instances relating to breaches of his undertakings "on well over 100 occasions."[39]
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Bennett_(politician)
-
Why bother with Bennett ?
He lost the plot along time ago.
Indeed, but probably a case of 'once an enemy, always an enemy' 8(0(*
-
Indeed, but probably a case of 'once an enemy, always an enemy' 8(0(*
It would indeed appear so and of course derisory comments about Mr Bennett , who is indeed an irrelevance, fill up space and add to the list of posts. It remains very tedious for some of us however.
-
It would indeed appear so and of course derisory comments about Mr Bennett , who is indeed an irrelevance, fill up space and add to the list of posts. It remains very tedious for some of us however.
Why bother answering then?
-
Why bother answering then?
Since if there is no response in some measure, mccann plaudits will continue to travel this well beaten and irrelevant line.
BENNETT IRRELEVANT. REMEMBER. 8)-)))
-
Since if there is no response in some measure, mccann plaudits will continue to travel this well beaten and irrelevant line.
BENNETT IRRELEVANT. REMEMBER. 8)-)))
Irrelevant in terms of what?
-
Why bother answering then?
Why sir how charming you are.
-
There was no libel trial against Tony Bennett. He was badgered by Carter Ruck into signing a court order but the McCanns never took him to court for libel. Now, why is that? I would have thought that they would have done so.
As for the Express papers handing over money, that never saw the inside of a court room either. Later, during the Leveson hearings, one of the witnesses for the Express (I think David Pilditch) stated that, although they paid to the McCanns, all their articles proved to be true accounts of the investigation, confirmed by the released official police files.
BTW, in Portugal, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove libel and in this trial, the McCanns must prove that the book caused them damages.
This quote is fascinating. It demonstrates so many problems that amateurs have in dealing with a case such as this.
"There was no libel trial against Tony Bennett. He was badgered by Carter Ruck into signing a court order but the McCanns never took him to court for libel. Now, why is that? I would have thought that they would have done so."
Of course "there was no libel trial against Tony Bennett". But what you fail to tell the readers is that there is a perfectly good reason for that.
That reason is simple. There was no libel trial against Tony Bennett because when previously challenged about his libellous claims, instead of defending those claime, the cowardly weasel chose to give a very specific undertaking to the High Court that he would not repeat those libellous claims. He could have very easily chosen not to take the coward's way out. Even the other challenger of the McCanns who was at the lawyer's office with him claims he should have defended his claims but he knew they were indefensible so chose to pay a fee, sign a very clear undertaking not to repeat the claims and scuttled back to Harlow (or was it Leverton or Ongar, his other two boltholes?).
Tony Bennett could not demonstrate the truth of his claims when he faced that lawyer in Liverpool so there was no need for a libel trial. His undertaking was the reason for there being no trial. Just a shame that the man has absolutely no honour whatsoever and illegally broke the undertaking he had made. The result of that was his later appearance in court where his vile, criminal actions resulted in him being convicted and punished. His continued inability to act with any kind of honour will, no doubt, bring a further conviction and even heavier punishment.
"As for the Express papers handing over money, that never saw the inside of a court room either. Later, during the Leveson hearings, one of the witnesses for the Express (I think David Pilditch) stated that, although they paid to the McCanns, all their articles proved to be true accounts of the investigation, confirmed by the released official police files."
Another few sentences where you muddie the issues and attempt to defend the indefensible with lies, half-truths and omissions.
The reality, once again, is perfectly simple. The sued newspapers were (like Bennett) unable to defend what they had written. In order to avoid the costly trial, they gave in to the inevitable before the main court action commenced. The fact is the case did see the inside of a court room when the newspapers stated in front of the Judge that they were conceding that they were at fault and were willing to settle the claim for damages caused by the content of the articles published. As for Pilditch, the thrust of his argument relates to the fact that the leaks from the Portuguese Police which he was reporting were accurate. He bemoans the fact that though his sources did exist and were connected to the PJ, he had no way to validate what they were telling him. In other words he is admitting that he did not really know if the content he was signing his name to was in fact true. He fully admits that fact.
But the nub of the issue with your quoting of Pilditch's statement to Leveson in this way is that he or she is simply taking the word of the journalist at face value. Perhaps you don't know that when this statement was discussed at Leveson the content was indeed challenged and shown to be untrue. It seems to be another example of not looking at things in context.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-21-December-20111.pdf
"BTW, in Portugal, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove libel and in this trial, the McCanns must prove that the book caused them damages."
Another interesting sentence.
The word damages here is used as meaning "harm" whereas others have described this case more generally as a "damages case" in order to hide the libel issue. In legal terms 'damages' is often also used to refer to the monies (or other goods/services) paid in reparation to one who has been 'damaged/harmed'.
But your comment is significant in that it states that the trial is all about proving that the book (or to be more accurate, the content of the book and the documentary) have caused the McCann family some harm.
What you and others seem to forget is that the McCanns are dealing with the libellous content of the book (as they see it) and the effects of that libellous content. What you and others seem to forget is that the Judge in Portugal has to initially make a decision as to the content of the book in order to then proceed to make a further decision about any damage done and any damages due. If there is only absolute truth in the book it would seem highly unlikely that the Judge would have progressed the case thus far, knowing that the McCanns cannot receive any damages as Amaral had only told complete truth. The reality is that this trial relates to defamation and what effect that defamation may or may not have had on the McCanns and on the search for Madeleine.
-
Only posts on this thread relating to the UK please.
For Portuguese Civil Libel Law and the McCann case please go to >> www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4852.msg172525#msg172525