Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Quick defamation question

By S2A of the civil evidence act:

"“Proof that any of the claimants stands convicted of an offence shall be conclusive evidence that he committed the offence so far as that fact is relevant to any issue arising in relation to his cause of action or that of any other claimant."

Can anything be said about the converse situation? i.e. suppose a claimant is found not guilty of a particular criminal offense, and the defendant nevertheless publishes a defamatory statement saying 'the claimant committed the offense'. At the trial for defamation is it open to the defendant to justify his comment?

I think yes because the standard of proof is lower in a civil claim so the two propositions are not inherently contradictory. However I can't find any case directly on point and it doesn't seem to be mentioned at all in any of the major textbooks. In Monson v Madame Tussauds, D accused C of murder via an innuendo but that was not the main point of the trial, the only relevant bit of the judgment says "It was stated in argument that the defendants did not intend to justify" which seems to me to suggest that it was at least theoretically open to them to justify.

Does anyone know if my understanding is correct?

(edited 11 years ago)