In the UK what constitutes a libel? Any takers?

[John]

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?

[Carana]

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?

[Jean-Pierre]

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. 

[Carana]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[ferryman]

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.

[Eleanor]

Repeating the libel of another person is also libel.  Allegedly and In My Opinion don't count then either.

[Carana]

I don't really see the relevance of UK law. Wouldn't PT law be more so?

[ferryman]

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)

[Carana]

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?

[faithlilly]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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....

[faithlilly]

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.

[Eleanor]

Judge Tugendhat said that inferences could be taken from certain supposedly innocuous remarks, and that he had understood those inferences to be present.

[ferryman]

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.