• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Defamation - it will be interesting to make compare the defamation law in the Russian legal system and the defamation law in the English legal system, as they are both part of completely different legal traditions. By examining these two different jurisdi

Extracts from this document...


Westminster International University in Tashkent Commercial Law 2010 - 2011 To be completed by the student Student's ID number 00001313 Module name Tort Law Module code 1UZB404 Tutor Malika Mukimova Individual assignment ? Group assignment ( Submission deadline I certify that all material in this coursework which is not my own work has been acknowledged and I am fully aware of the consequences of plagiarism. Signed For Academic Registrar use only Contents: Contents: 1 I. Introduction: 2 II. Defamation law in England: 2 I. General overview (Defamation and Free Speech): 2 II. Defences: 3 III. Defamation in Russian Law 4 I. General Overview (defamation and free speech): 4 II. Defences: 5 IV. Evaluation: 5 V. Bibliography: 7 I. Introduction: The basis of modern society is formed by the fundamental human right of freedom of speech. The importance of having this fundamental right is immense. In order for this world to continue modernizing, it is very important to let every individual voice his/her opinion. However, in certain situations what one person says (intentionally or unintentionally) might harm the reputation of another person. I believe that defamation law and freedom of speech are two different sides of the same coin. They always go together, yet talk about two contradicting concepts. If freedom of speech gives everyone the right to express themselves, then defamation limits this right, in order to protect the reputation of individuals from being harmed. ...read more.


Defamatory statements made on a privileged occasion are not actionable. Privileged occasions are those, where public interest in freedom of speech is such that it overrules any concerns as to the effect of this freedom on the claimant's reputation.5 There are two types of privileges, absolute and qualified. Absolute privilege applies to statements made in Parliament, court hearings, any document ordered to be published by House of Parliament and communications between certain officers of state. Qualified privilege applies to an occasion where the person who makes a communication has an interest or a duty (legal, social, or moral) to make it to the person to whom it is so made has a corresponding interest or duty to receive it.6 The rationale for this is said to be the "common convenience and welfare of society". Unlike absolute privilege, the defence of qualified privilege will be defeated if malice is proved. Fair comment protects the defendant's right to criticize the claimant, which is why the defendant does not have to show that his/her words are true. However, this right to criticize is kept within strict boundaries. In order to qualify for this defence the defendant must prove that he/she was acting in public interest. Moreover the defendant should also show that the statement was based upon a set of facts and that the defendant honestly held that opinion. ...read more.


The main example would be placing the burden of proof on the defendant or assuming that the statement made by the defendant is false. I think that this places the defendant in an unfair position. In Russian law, the defences are very limited and the punishment is greater because defamation in Russian law is regarded as a criminal offence in certain cases. I think that defamation should not be regarded as a criminal offence under any circumstances because it "creates an impermissible "chilling effect" stemming the flow of protected speech".8 Moreover, the burden of proof shifts improperly, thus, requiring the defendant to prove his/her innocence. I believe that Russian defamation law needs to cut out defamation from criminal law completely. It can be seen that compared to English defamation law; Russian defamation law limits free speech to a greater extent. The main reasons are limited number of defences and defamation being a part of the criminal law. However, the Russian law has tried to improve the situation by implementing defamation in their Civil Code. The result of my research says, that despite the fact that the defences help to minimize the negative effect of defamation law on free speech it can be said that almost every legal system infringes free speech to some extent. The main reason for this is limited number of defences (in the case of Russian law) and in some cases the judges tend to favour the protection of reputation more than free speech. V. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Tort Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Tort Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Law of Tort Assignment.

    5 star(s)

    evident that the Act has had an impact, especially since the case of Osman v UK. The effect of Osman is that it is now possible to bring a claim against public authorities, '...after Osman, English law has made it much easier for many persons to sue public authorities in negligence.'

  2. Negligence in law.

    They (the courts in Murphy) stated that liability would only be imposed if the facts of the particular case were analogous to an existing precedent. Caparo v. Dickman laid down 3 questions to be asked to determine a duty of care: 1. Was the damage to the plaintiff reasonable foreseen?

  1. To succeed in a negligence action in tort, the claimant must prove three things

    Dibonicus had no control over Wanderer, so he may be found not to be liable. If it is found that he is a private nuisance, Dibonicus may use the defence of a third party. In the case of Smith v.

  2. Remoteness of damage is an interesting principle especially when analyzing two specific cases. They ...

    What was the reason? The Lords viewed the type of harm as the important factor. It did not matter whether the explosion was foreseeable. Consequently, as Harpwood10 relates: in essence, that people might suffer burns was the issue of foreseeability.

  1. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002].

    Indeed we think that any employer who exposed the claimant to more than half of his cumulative exposure could be held liable, because "more likely than not" that employer wrongfully exposed the claimant to the fibre or fibres that caused his or her condition.

  2. tort law problem

    and that they conduct these sexual acts in front of an un-curtained window. Again these statements have been published in the newspaper. These statements are all untrue and have damaged Sally's reputation. This can be seen through the word 'whore' being spoken in her direction.

  1. Defamation Law: A Comparative Study of the US and the UK

    Since then, American defamation has been continuously going through several changes and upheavals, particularly due to the introduction of defamation possibilities on the Internet, but the courts have remained convinced of the fact that privacy is simply not as important as freedom of speech.

  2. McLoughlin v OBrian [1983] AC 410, per Lord Bridge, at 441. Discuss the above ...

    para 6.35 [14] This section is driven by the decision in Alcock [15] M A Jones, ?Liability for Psycahitric Illness ? More Principle, Less Sublety?? [1995] 4 Web JCLI, which can be found: <http://www.ncl.ac.uk/~nlawwww/articles4/jones4.html> accessed on 1st April, 2012 [16] [1983] 1 AC 410 [17] Approved in Jaensch v Coffey (1984)

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work