The hearing of the case resulted in favour of Me McManus in march 2003, making Mrs Beckham pay the 500,00 in slander damages and she also paid more than 100,000 in legal costs.
The Bond theme case (see appendices for article)
In October 1997 The Sunday Times printed and article which said that Monty Norman did not write the James Bond theme. Mr Norman sued The Sunday Times against a libel action.The two-week hearing centred on whether the theme's composer was Mr Norman or fellow composer John Barry. Times Newspapers denied libel and argued it was true Mr Barry was the composer of the tune. Mr Barry whose soundtracks include many Bond films such as Born Free, Zulu and Midnight Cowboy, told the jury Mr Norman's claim that he, and he alone, wrote the tune was false.
The case for Times Newspapers was that Mr Barry was brought in to write the theme at a late stage - six months into the project because Mr Norman had run out of inspiration and there was a crisis. Mr Norman claimed that this has damaged his reputation not just by saying that he did not write the Bond theme but by suggesting that he had been dishonestly taking the credit and the royalties for a composition that was not his.
Nevertheless the composer Monty Norman won £30,000 libel damages over the newspaper article whereas The Times Newspapers faced costs of well above £500,000.
Defences
As mentioned a libel case is one which is very common and there are also possible defences for these case. You may be able to defeat the claim against a libel action by showing that the plaintiff hasn’t proven the necessary elements of defamation- namely, a defamatory statement about the plaintiff and the publication. There are three key defences which can be used these are:
- Justification (the truth)
- Fair comment
- Qualified Privilege
Justification (truth)
The defendant will succeed if they can substantially justify or prove the truth of the "sting" of the offending statements. Justification has to be used with great care. When relying on the defence of justification the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that the allegations made are true. The defendant must prove it on the balance of probabilities, that is, the allegation is more likely than not to be true.. An unsuccessful defence of justification is likely to increase the level of any damages awarded. A defendant is not required to prove that every allegation is true providing that where the words complained of contain two or more distinct allegations a defence of justification can still succeed if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the claimant's reputation.
Fair comment
If a defendant can prove that the defamatory statement is an expression of opinion on a matter of public interest and not a statement of fact, he or she can rely on the defence of fair comment.
The comment must be based on true facts which are either contained in the publication or are sufficiently referred to. It is for the defendant to prove that the underlying facts are true. As with justification, the defendant does not to have to prove the truth of every fact provided the comment was fair in relation to those facts which are proved. Fair does not mean reasonable, but signifies the absence of malice. The views expressed can be exaggerated, obstinate or prejudiced, provided they are honestly held.
Privilege
Generally stating if an untrue defamatory allegation is published on an occasion of privilege, they will be protected from a claim for defamation.
Absolute Privilege
Absolute privilege provides a complete defence, however malicious or untrue the allegation is. It is confined to proceedings in Parliament or courts in this country.
Qualified Privilege
Qualified privilege provides a conditional defence. If a statement published on an occasion of qualified privilege is published maliciously, then the defence will fail.
Section 15 and Schedule 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 provide a statutory qualified privilege for material that is of public concern and for the public benefit. The Defamation Act distinguishes between statements that attract qualified privilege without explanation or contradiction and those that are privileged subject to explanation or contradiction.
Statements that qualify for qualified privilege without explanation or contradiction are as follows:
• Fair and accurate reports of public proceedings of legislatures, courts, government appointed public inquiries, international organisations/conferences anywhere in the world;
• A fair and accurate copy of or extract from any register or other document required by law to be open to public inspection;
• A notice or advertisement published by or on the authority of a court, or of a judge or officer of a court, anywhere in the world;
• A fair and accurate copy of or extract from matter published by or on the authority of a government or legislature or by an international organisation or an international conference anywhere in the world. However the defences of fair comment and qualified privilege will fail if the claimant can prove that the defendant was motivated by malice when publishing the allegations. Express malice has been defined as a dominant desire to injure the person who is defamed. Absence of an honest belief in the defamatory allegations is generally conclusive evidence of express malice.
Appendices
Bibliography
Crone, Tom, Law and The Media, Focal Press, April 2001
Baker, Rhonda, Media Law, Routlidge, October 1994
Handouts
Davies, Steve, Defamation handout, May 2004
Internet sources
22.05.04
20/05.04
Crone, Tom, Law and The Media, Focal Press, April 2001, p.4
Davies, Steve, Defamation handout, May 2004, pp.1-2
Davies, Steve, Defamation handout, May 2004, p.2
http://www.lawteacher.net/Tort/Defamation/Defamation%20Lecture.htm
Davies, Steve, Defamation handout, May 2004, p.2
