LAWS212: W20 Truth 11/09
Attendance and Performance
Roll call taken for data gathering on attendance and performance correlation.
Information useful for future classes.
Attendance data may be referenced in case of IGRATAS applications or impaired performance claims.
Personal circumstances regarding absence do not need to be communicated.
Class Materials
Yellow name tags requested for organization.
Presentation of course slides in advance:
Previous reluctance attributed to last-minute changes.
Slides are to be marked as drafts to indicate potential modifications.
Truth and Defenses Overview
Transition into discussion of defenses following the plaintiff's case presentation.
Previously discussed triviality; moving to other defenses, notably truth.
Important Rule: Repetition Rule
Defined: Repeating a defamatory allegation does not constitute proof of its truth.
Example: If Graham Austin states, "Nicole is a thief," simply repeating this does not absolve one from liability unless the truth of the statement can be proved.
Liability extends to anyone who republishes defamatory statements; they are treated as having made the assertions themselves.
Exception noted for situations of neutral reportage.
Truth as a Defense
Key points about truth in defamation defense:
The plaintiff does not need to prove that the statement was false.
The defendant's complete defense lies in proving the statement's truth.
Old terminology of ‘justification’ has been replaced by ‘truth’ per the Defamation Act 1992.
The burden of proof rests with the defendant to show the truth of the statement.
The defense must prove not only the literal meaning of the words but also any underlying implications or innuendos.
Why Plead Truth?
Benefits of pleading truth include:
It completely absolves the defendant from liability.
It bolsters the original statement’s validity.
Reasons against pleading truth:
Difficulty in obtaining necessary evidence.
Classified information may not be accessible.
Journalistic protection of anonymous sources.
Difficulty in proving generalized statements.
Case Analysis: Templeton and Jones
Importance of the case in relation to the Defamation Act.
Summary of facts:
Hugh Templeton made disparaging public statements about Bob Jones, claiming he hated various groups, including Jews.
Jones disputed only the accusation of antisemitism, leading to the question of whether one can sue for only a part of the allegations.
Court ruling:
A plaintiff can select one element of a defamatory statement to sue on.
Evidence relating to the truth of other claims cannot be introduced once specific allegations have been chosen to plead.
Legislative Impact
The Defamation Act effect:
Section 8, defensive truth, alters the rules regarding pleading on separate meanings of statements.
Under the Act:
The defendant may assert truth regarding the publication as a whole, not just specifics about the claim.
Leeway given for minor inaccuracies, allowing for defense against immaterial differences.
Relevance of the Act
Defamation Act allows a more comprehensive avenue for defendants by enabling them to argue broader claims, thus potentially benefiting from a greater context.
Additional Discussed Cases: Haines
Background of Haines case concerning defamatory remarks about a business operation, illustrating options for plaintiffs and what constitutes acceptable meaning.
Comparison made with case law in England, clarifying distinctions regarding pleading.
Conclusion
Recap on importance of truth in defamation defenses, supported by case law.
Highlighted necessity of not just proving facts but understanding the implications and scope of statements.
Haines case emphasizing interaction between pleaded meanings and the scope of statutory defenses.
Final Thoughts
Encouraged students to seek clarification and revisit case law for deeper understanding of complex topics in defamation law.