Talk:English defamation law

Reynolds Defence

I think an article on libel should include the case of the Sunday Times vs former Irish Taoiseach

Mr Reynolds objected to a 1994 article claiming he had misled parliament entitled Goodbye Gombeen Man - a reference to an Irish phrase used to describe a wheeler dealer.
After a complicated 24-day trial Mr Reynolds won a symbolic one penny in compensation but the important point was the case's place in the development of British libel law.
Three years later the House of Lords decided to allow the media to plead the Reynolds defence - which meant newspapers could print untrue and defamatory information if they could prove it was in the public interest to publish it and that it was the product of responsible journalism.

The gist of the case can be found here Guardian Media —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.153.138 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

FYI the case (Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd) is now mentioned in the Qualified privilege section, and RichsLaw seems to be drafting a wider discussion (see User:RichsLaw/Qualified privilege in English law). Other articles that touch on the case include Neutral reportage, Albert Reynolds and Freedom of speech by country. - Pointillist (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I intend to write that page at some time.. I must say I have become a bit bored of the subject area of defamation — which used to interest me. If anyone would like to lend a hand, let me know. RichsLaw (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Medical Journal article

The Editor of the BMJ has written an article:

Reform our libel laws, but not our NHS

Brangifer (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statute law

Which statutes codify defamation in England? What about the other countries of the UK? Hairy Dude (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Defamation Act 1996. I believe it extends to Scotland, with NI having their own act. RichsLaw (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the relevant statutes are listed at Defamation Act and Libel Act. They do not codify the whole law of defamation, and look, to me, largely like a set of miscellaneous amendments. James500 (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative criminal charge?

The Communications Act 2003 creates an offence of electronically sending a message known to be false with malicious intentions[1]. Should this be mentioned as another law in the area? It has been enforced in relation to one obvious extreme example of defamation - an accusation of being a paedophile[2].Billwilson5060 (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cut and paste

The following passage is from the revision history of Defamation here:

The project 'Cause Papers in the Diocesan Courts of the Archbishopric of York' provides an on-line, searchable catalogue of all cases that passed before the ecclesiastical courts of York between 1300-1858.[3] The records of these courts offer examples of many engaging and instructive defamation causes from the fourteenth- to the nineteenth-centuries.

The source may be useful. I have added the other passage to the article. James500 (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As to sourcing it, I should say that I think I remember reading something along those lines in Winfield and Jolowicz on Torts. James500 (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Case law

The whole section headed "case law" needs to be removed and the material it contains redistributed under subjects to which the cases actually relate. You can't divide defamation into "case law" and everything else, because the law is almost entirely based on precedent with minor statutory modifications. Also, famous trials are not necessarily precedents, do not necessarily create any law, and should not be described as case law unless they do. James500 (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the heading of the section to "cases". Editors need to understand that this article is supposed to describe the law of defamation. It is not supposed to be a list of famous trials. James500 (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Defamation Act 2013

This act (which came into force at the start of 2014) made a number of changes to the law, and those changes are not fully reflected in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pr100 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Defamation Bill received Royal Assent yesterday, so this article needs updating to reflect the new law. Hairy Dude (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article still seems terribly out of date due to the major changes brought in by the Defamation Act 2013. eg having section "Fair comment" rather than "Honest opinion" as renamed/changed post 2013. Will put an Update tag on the article to flag this. Rwendland (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biased viewpoint?

The article as it stands seems to imply that English law is out of step with the rest of the world, in being more favourable to those bringing complaints of defamation. It is certainly more favourable than the law in the USA, but the USA is not the rest of the world. In Common Law jurisdictions other than the USA, the position seems similar to that in England. In most of Continental Europe defamation is a criminal offence, which is surely even more likely to inhibit freedom of speech. (Note also that in some countries, e.g. France, there are very strict privacy laws, which prevent the kind of kiss-and-tell journalism which is common in both the UK and USA.) As to the burden of proof, the article seems to imply that it is unreasonable for defendants to have the burden of proving a defence of justification, but surely the person making a defamatory statement should be expected to justify it. Otherwise, it would be possible to accuse someone of (e.g.) being an adulterer, and the person accused would have the virtually impossible task of proving that they are not an adulterer! Even in a criminal case, where in general the burden of proof is clearly on the prosecution, it is still for the accused to prove any particular form of defence, e.g. alibi. 109.158.135.250 (talk) 17:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James I NOT 1567

As of 2016-12-20, the lede included, "The first fully reported case in which libel is affirmed generally to be punishable at common law was tried during the reign of James I (1567-1625).^{[citation needed]}"

This monarch was from the House of Stuart. He was crowned King of Scots as James VI at the age of thirteen months in 1567 after the assassination of his father and imprisonment of his mother. In 1603 upon the death of Elizabeth I of England, he became king of England and Ireland.

I am not familiar with English defamation law, but a case brought in England under James I could not have been brought before 1603. The article mentions no date for this case but currently mentions James I three times, only one of which with a date.

I will therefore change 1567 here to 1603 -- and leave the "citation needed" flag. I hope someone else can find someone knowledgeable enough to clarify this. DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on English defamation law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme costs of the process

I read that it is excessively expenive to start a defamation case in UK courts. Could the aticle describe the spources/background for these costs? -DePiep (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]