| 单词 | Substantial truth |
| 释义 | 大體上屬實 A statement which is in substance true, or in substance not materially different from the truth. A statement is substantially true when the ‘sting’ of the statement is true: Edwards v Bell (1824) 1 Bing 403, 130 ER 162. At common law and under legislation the defence of justification relies on the substantial truth of a defamatory statement. Since the law presumes that every person is of good repute until the contrary is proved, it is for the defendant to plead and prove affirmatively that the defamatory words are true or substantially true: Oriental Daily Publisher Ltd v Ming Pao Holdings Ltd [1999] 4 HKC 354. If a defendant pleads justification, where the words complained of consist of statements of fact and comment, he must prove that the defamatory statements of fact are true or substantially true and that the defamatory inferences borne by the comment are true: Broadway Approvals Ltd v Odhams Press Ltd [1965] 2 All ER 523, 1 WLR 805 (CA). Where the defendant alleges that, in so far as the words complained of consist of statements of fact, they are true in substance and in fact, he must give particulars stating which of the words complained of he alleges are statement of facts and of the facts and matters he relies on in support of the allegation that the words are true: The Rules of the High Court (Cap 4A) O 82 r 3(2). A defendant may have a complete defence to an action for defamation if he or she can prove that the defamatory statement is true in all but the most minor respects. In a case where the words contain two or more distinct charges against the plaintiff, the defence of justification will not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the plaintiff's reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges: Defamation Ordinance (Cap 21) s 26. See also Defamation; Public interest; Qualified privilege. 實質上屬實或實質上與真相沒有重大分別的陳述。如有關陳述的主要部分屬實，則某陳述大體上屬實：Edwards v Bell (1824) 1 Bing 403, 130 ER 162。在普通法上及根據法例，有理可據的抗辯取決於誹謗性陳述是否大體上屬實。鑒於法律推定，直至有相反證明為止，任何人均有良好的聲譽，因而被告人須作訴，及肯定地證明有關的誹謗性文字屬實或大體上屬實: Oriental Daily Publisher Ltd v Ming Pao Holdings Ltd [1999] 4 HKC 354。如被告人以有理可據作為答辯，倘若有關的文字由事實及評論組成，則他／她必須證明有關的事實誹謗陳述屬實或大體上屬實，並證明由有關的評論附帶的誹謗性推論屬實：Broadway Approvals Ltd v Odhams Press Ltd [1965] 2 All ER 523, 1 WLR 805 (英國上訴法院)。凡在永久形式誹謗或短暫形式誹謗的訴訟中，被告人指稱在遭投訴的言詞是由關於事實的陳述組成的範圍內，該等言詞在內容及事實上屬實，則被告人必須提供有關詳情，述明在遭投訴的言詞中何者是他所指稱的關於事實的陳述，並提供關於他所倚據以支持指稱該等言詞屬實的事實及事宜的詳情：《高等法院規則》（第4A章）第82號命令第3(2)條規則。如被告人可證明有關的誹謗性質除最輕微的地方外，全部屬實，則他／她就有關的訴訟而言，可有完全的抗辯。在永久形式誹謗或短暫形式誹謗的訴訟中，如有關言詞含有2項或多於2項針對原告人的不同控罪，則以有理可據作為免責辯護不得僅因並非每項控罪皆獲證明屬實而不能成立，但該等未獲證明屬實的言詞，在顧及其餘控罪乃屬真實後，須為對原告人聲譽並無關鍵性的損害者：《誹謗條例》（第21章）第26條。另見 Defamation; Public interest; Qualified privilege。 |
| 随便看 |
|
法律词典收录了8080条英汉双解法律词条，基本涵盖了常用法律英语单词及短语词组的翻译及用法，是法律学习的有利工具。