British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh

[Lothian]

Seems to me that anyone taking someone else to court seeking compensation needs to show to the court that compensation is merited. That is the case whether someone is claiming someone else backed into their fence, stole their idea or libelled them.

 

[Stuart]

steenkh, it is possible to block internet access to whole countries.

National Enquirier site is blocked to those in the UK - you can google it, any of the links for their site listed in google return "Page under construction" or "Page not found"

edited for typo

 

[steenkh]

Try with a proxy like anonymouse.org.

 

[Mojo]

Assault and murder are still civil matters as well as criminal. In other words you can sue someone for assault or murder. In which case you need to prove that something happened.

But you don't need to satisfy the criminal standard of proof (i.e. "beyond reasonable doubt) in a civil case; the civil standard is lower ("balance of probabilities").

 

[Ocelot]

If they did not publish on the UK market, but somebody bought it and brought it into England, would it then still be subject to British libel laws?

Spycatcher wasn't about libel, it was about secrecy.

 

[BillyJoe]

But you don't need to satisfy the criminal standard of proof (i.e. "beyond reasonable doubt) in a civil case; the civil standard is lower ("balance of probabilities").

But are you quilty untill proven innocent, or innocent untill proven guilty, or does guilt and innocence somehow hot apply?

 

[Mojo]

But are you quilty untill proven innocent, or innocent untill proven guilty, or does guilt and innocence somehow hot apply?

Not in a civil case, no.

The presumption of innocence and the requirement that guilt be proven beyond reasonable doubt only applies to criminal cases.

 

[BillyJoe]

Okay, up to speed (I think)

 

[Lothian]

Not in a civil case, no.

The presumption of innocence and the requirement that guilt be proven beyond reasonable doubt only applies to criminal cases.

My understanding is that in the following surreal examples the law would be applies thus;

I sue you for knocking down my gate and neither side offers any evidence the case will be found in your favour.

I sue you for libel and neither side offers any evidence the case will be found in my favour.

Is that right?

 

[rjh01]

I think Lothian has it. In the libel case do they have enough information to award damages? If so, that needs changing, which is what my point in post 1233 was.

 

[BillyJoe]

Okay, up to speed (I think)

I'm glad I added "(I think)"

 

[Ocelot]

My understanding is that in the following surreal examples the law would be applies thus;

I sue you for knocking down my gate and neither side offers any evidence the case will be found in your favour.

I sue you for libel and neither side offers any evidence the case will be found in my favour.

Is that right?

Quesiton: How many bite can you take from a whole sandwich?

Answer: Just One... Once you've taken one bite it's no longer whole.

Don't know why but your surreal examples reminded me of that pedantry.

If you sue me for knocking down you gate then you're effectively testifying that I knocked down your gate. If no further evidence is offered then the balance of evidence is that I knocked down your gate. Your testimony vs nothing.

Now for the legal experts to correct me on terminology...

 

[laca]

My understanding is that in the following surreal examples the law would be applies thus;

I sue you for knocking down my gate and neither side offers any evidence the case will be found in your favour.

I sue you for libel and neither side offers any evidence the case will be found in my favour.

Is that right?

I don't think so. As someone stated, in case of a libel suit, the libeled party has to offer evidence that the statement it consider libelous happened and that if true, it would hurt its reputation. Unless such evidence is presented, the suit does not even start. IMO.

 

[Mojo]

My understanding is that in the following surreal examples the law would be applies thus;

I sue you for knocking down my gate and neither side offers any evidence the case will be found in your favour.

I sue you for libel and neither side offers any evidence the case will be found in my favour.

Is that right?

I think laca pretty much has it. The claimant has to produce evidence that the statement complained of was published and was damaging to their reputation. If they can do that, there are still a number of defences available, but it is then up to the defendant to establish that one of them applies.

 

[Lothian]

I think laca pretty much has it. The claimant has to produce evidence that the statement complained of was published and was damaging to their reputation. ....

Correct, but they don't need to prove that the statement was untrue.

Imagine that you are lying MP who takes funds from arms dealers who put you up in a hotel, say the Ritz in Paris. If I say that the arms dealers picked up your hotel bill you can sue me for libel.

Given the transaction is between you the arms dealer and the hotel. It is very hard for me to evidence that it was not you that paid it.

It would be very easy for you to produce a copy of the bill and show the money coming out of your account. If the burden of proof was on you, that is what you would have to do to convince the court.

If the burden was on me, you could simply lie, say you wife paid it and stand behind the shield of justice waving your sword of truth. Despite the fact that you have provided no evidence the court starts off on your side.

If something is printed about you that is false, you should have to show that it is false as well as printed and damaging.

 

[Ocelot]

Correct, but they don't need to prove that the statement was untrue.

Imagine that you are lying MP who takes funds from arms dealers who put you up in a hotel, say the Ritz in Paris. If I say that the arms dealers picked up your hotel bill you can sue me for libel.

Given the transaction is between you the arms dealer and the hotel. It is very hard for me to evidence that it was not you that paid it.

It would be very easy for you to produce a copy of the bill and show the money coming out of your account. If the burden of proof was on you, that is what you would have to do to convince the court.

If the burden was on me, you could simply lie, say you wife paid it and stand behind the shield of justice waving your sword of truth. Despite the fact that you have provided no evidence the court starts off on your side.

If something is printed about you that is false, you should have to show that it is false as well as printed and damaging.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Aitken#Libel_action

Again you have a funny idea of no evidence. If I testify that my wife paid the hotel bill in question then that is evidence. Obviously it's a rung or two below the documentary evidence supplied to the contrary in the generally accepted heirarchy of evidence, but lets be reasonable here. If the World in Action didn't have reason to believe (a.k.a. evidence) that Aitken's hotel bill was sleazy then they were pretty irresponsible in broadcasting the allegation.

 

[Lothian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Aitken#Libel_action

Again you have a funny idea of no evidence. If I testify that my wife paid the hotel bill in question then that is evidence. Obviously it's a rung or two below the documentary evidence supplied to the contrary in the generally accepted heirarchy of evidence, but lets be reasonable here. If the World in Action didn't have reason to believe (a.k.a. evidence) that Aitken's hotel bill was sleazy then they were pretty irresponsible in broadcasting the allegation.

I have funny ideas of lots of things, but to be fair I did explain that my example of no evidence was surreal.

I agree that a reasonable journalist needs reason to believe what they print, but this is about libel and the burden of proof.

I suspect that in Atkin’s case his evidence would not have been enough to convince a court starting with the assumption he had not paid to move to accepting that on the balance of probabilities he did.

However he knew that the merits of his evidence was not what was being tested. He knew he didn't pay the bill, therefore he knew he could not evidence that he did. However he only needed show that the claims were made and that they damaged his reputation.

It would then depend on whether the Guardian could do enough to convince a court starting with the assumption he had paid the bill to accepting that on the balance of probabilities he hadn’t.

I suggest that the case would never have been taken if the burden was on the person binging the case rather than the defendant.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I have funny ideas of lots of things, but to be fair I did explain that my example of no evidence was surreal.

I agree that a reasonable journalist needs reason to believe what they print, but this is about libel and the burden of proof.

I suspect that in Atkin’s case his evidence would not have been enough to convince a court starting with the assumption he had not paid to move to accepting that on the balance of probabilities he did.

However he knew that the merits of his evidence was not what was being tested. He knew he didn't pay the bill, therefore he knew he could not evidence that he did. However he only needed show that the claims were made and that they damaged his reputation.

It would then depend on whether the Guardian could do enough to convince a court starting with the assumption he had paid the bill to accepting that on the balance of probabilities he hadn’t.

I suggest that the case would never have been taken if the burden was on the person binging the case rather than the defendant.

Problem with that is it is very easy to make completely unfounded but extremely difficult to disprove allegations.

For example lets say the allegation was that while Aitken paid the hotel bill on his credit card and can produce a receipt, he then took a cash bribe in used, unmarked notes from an arms dealer of an amount equal to the hotel bill. How exactly could any reasonable person prove that this did not happen?

The person bringing the libel case has to prove the statement was made and that it damaged their reputation. One of the defences available to the person making the statement is that it was true. It is not unreasonable to expect them to prove this.

 

[laca]

The more I think about it, the more this issue becomes blurry. On one hand, if the plaintiff is never required to show evidence that the supposedly libelous statement might at least be false, the defendant's job could become unfairly hard. On the other hand, if the plaintiff would always be required to show some evidence, that could also make things really unfair for it.

I guess relying on the judge's sensible weighing of the case in question is not a foolproof solution either. It would also be nearly if not completely impossible to set up some objective rules to determine whether the plaintiff has to provide some evidence besides the obvious ones. Am I missing something?

 

[AndyD]

National Enquirier site is blocked to those in the UK - you can google it, any of the links for their site listed in google return "Page under construction" or "Page not found"

Can't access it in Australia either. Someone else, somewhere, said they couldn't get it in Europe. The question now is, can anyone access it?

I sue you for knocking down my gate and neither side offers any evidence the case will be found in your favour.

In the case of libel, the person being sued is the person who claims the other person knocked down their gate.

eg:

1. Person A's gate is knocked down
2. Person A says Person B did it (with or without evidence of the fact).
3. Person B sues Person A for making that claim publicly, "without evidence".

Person A made the claim publicly so Person A now has to defend that claim. How is Person B supposed to prove they didn't do what Person A claimed they did? I cant see how it could be any other way.

Or, put another way...

In a criminal case, The Crown (prosecution) claims person B killed someone. The Crown has to prove its case and person B is presumed innocent unless it can do so. The major difference is where the claim of culpability is being made. In a murder case, the claim is made in court while in a libel case, the claim (eg Singh's article) is made in public.

I don't disagree with the finer arguments of cost and compensation and showing that damage has been or is likely to be caused (though that too might be impossible to demonstrate but that doesn't mean the damage isn't real).

I seem to recall JoK saying "guilty" is not a finding in libel cases. I could recall wrongly though.