B1385 - Defamation Act 2013 (Amendment) Bill 2018Watch
Aye from me.
Due to the fact that I am a quite the legal nerd, could the author of the bill direct me to a case involving retroactive defamation?
First of all the example is irrelevant because of section 4a of the limitations act 1980
The time limit under section 2 of this Act shall not apply to an action for—
(a)libel or slander, or
(b)slander of title, slander of goods or other malicious falsehood,
but no such action shall be brought after the expiration of one year from the date on which the cause of action accrued.
Section 8(3) of the defamation act 2013
For the purposes of section 4A of the Limitation Act 1980 (time limit for actions for defamation etc) any cause of action against the person for defamation in respect of the subsequent publication is to be treated as having accrued on the date of the first publication.
The court would interpret the said Act with an aim to avoid any manifest injustice. So, the judge would apply for the four stage test to the case:
1. Is the statement defamatory?
Using the example the government gave us, calling one a fraudster would be defamatory because it would lower the claimant in the estimations of right minded members of society in general.
2. Does the statement refer to the claimant?
Again, using the example, yes. The statement does refer to the claimant.
3. Has the statement been 'published or communicated' to a third party?
4. Are there any applicable defences?
Now, this is the part concerning this Act before the House today. The Government feels that because the claimant was a fraudster in the past, that the defendant would still be able to claim the defence of truth in the future.
I'm not so sure that I buy into this claim that the judge would interpret section 2 of the Act to include the past in there. For example, when you refer to a past job, you would say, for example, that you were a barista or something of that ilk. Now, if the publication or communication were to say &quot;A was a fraudster&quot;, that would not be defamatory becaude it would be true. But to infer that A is currently a fraudster is defamatory because it is not true as A does not commit fraudulent acts any longer.
Open to being convinced otherwise in a polite and calm manner.
When TSR is being less sh*tty I shall read what is in the spoilers but looks good to me.