In England there is a technical distinction in the law of defamation between libel and slander. Libel refers to a permanent form such as print and slander to a transient form such as speech. Some Australian states have abolished the distinction between slander and libel. In England, but not in Scotland, the statement complained of must be communicated to a person other than the plaintiff. The essence, how- ever, is that the statement must be defamatory, as above defined. If it has this special quality, then it is not essential that the plaintiff should prove malice, making the effective onus fall on the defendant. To allege a person is a criminal or behaves immorally is defamatory. To be actionable, the statement must be false, and this is resolved in court by the defendant pleading justification (or veritas in Scotland). The Defamation Act 1952 makes it unnecessary for the defendant to show that every charge is true so long as those that remain false do not materially injure the plaintiff's reputation. Communication has been established by many means, including film and effigy or by the Internet (see Godfrey v. Demon Internet Ltd [1999] TLR 301).

118

default

The statement need not always be a bald assertion. It is open to the plaintiff to innuendo a statement, that is, to show that a statement is not, on the face of it, defamatory, actually has a defamatory meaning. The plaintiff must state in words in his pleadings what this meaning is. A statement in a foreign language always requires an innuendo. Of practical importance are the other defences. Absolute privilege protects certain communications – parliamentary proceedings, judi- cial proceedings and official communications. The Defamation Act 1996 allows absolute privilege to fair and accurate contemporaneous reports of judicial proceedings in newspapers and in broadcasts. Qualified privilege is more subtle. It protects (subject to the qualifica- tion discussed later) statements made in certain circumstances. The categories are not closed, but among those that have been recognised are included statements in pursuance of a duty, in protection of an interest, and fair and accurate reports by any means of proceedings of public and semi-public bodies. Some categories of statement are given qualified privilege and others qualified privilege subject to explanation or contradictions. The qualified nature of qualified priv- ilege is that the maker of the false defamatory statement is protected only if there is not actual malice – in other words, the defence really only takes away the presumption of malice inherent in a defamatory statement.

Fair comment is another frequently used defence, but it depends

upon the matter being shown to be a comment on facts truly stated. People are allowed to be most vehement in such comment. It has recently been called honest comment in the House of Lords. It does not forgive false statements. The matter must be one of some public interest.

The Defamation Act 1996 gives a publisher, including, for example, an Internet service provider, a defence where it neither knew nor had reason to know that a statement was defamatory of the person com- plaining. However, there must be an offer of amends, that is, to pub- lish a correction and apology and to pay such compensation as may be agreed.

In Scotland defamation is only one form of VERBAL INJURY, the oth- ers being CONVICIUM and MALICIOUS FRAUD.

See also ROLLED-UP PLEA.

• policy of insurance
• political asylum
• pollicitatio
• polygamous marriage
• position statement
• positive prescription
• positivism
• possession
• postal acceptance rule
• post-dating
• post diem
• post mortem
• power of attorney
• pp
• practising certificate
• praepositura
• preamble
• precario
• precedent
• precognition
• pre-emption
• pre-emption clause
• preference share
• preferential debts
• pre-incorporation contract