R v Sargent

[Nicholas Bohm]

At 12:25 31-10-2001 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>Adrian Midgley <akm@92tr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> This is probably a digression, and possibly needs careful wording, but
>> in such circumstances is one safe in remarking that so and so is or
>> are arsonists?
>
>It's a contemporaneous report of a court case, and so it is "absolutely
>privileged" (section 14 of the Defamation Act 1996) and so you cannot
>get sued for libel (so long as the report is "fair and accurate" ;-) )

The report supports an assertion that the accused are acquitted arsonists,
or that they were found guilty of arson on the basis of evidence later
ruled inadmissible; but not that they are or were arsonists (which implies
that they were convicted and that the conviction was not set aside).  

Regards

Nicholas

Salkyns, Great Canfield,
Takeley, Bishop’s Stortford CM22 6SX, UK

Phone	01279 871272	(+44 1279 871272)
Fax	01279 870215	(+44 1279 870215)
Mobile	07715 419728 (+44 7715 419728)

PGP RSA 1024 bit public key ID: 0x08340015.  Fingerprint:
9E 15 FB 2A 54 96 24 37  98 A2 E0 D1 34 13 48 07
PGP DSS/DH 1024/3072 public key ID: 0x899DD7FF.  Fingerprint:
5248 1320 B42E 84FC 1E8B  A9E6 0912 AE66 899D D7FF