Analyse and Assess the Pros and Cons of the Libel Defences of Justification and Fair Comment

Analyse and assess the pros and cons of the libel defences of justification and fair comment with reference to a minimum of three case studies

Libel law in England is incredibly tough, so much so, that if found to be liable of a

defamatory statement, ‘a statement which lowers someone in the eyes of reasonable

people...’ [Quinn 2009: 210] the consequences can be very costly to both the

journalist themselves and their newspapers and therefore it is very important for the

defences of defamation to be used to full effect an example of this is libel tourism

and the case of involving Roman Polanski 2005. The magazine had said that the

event had take place before the claimant’s wife’s funeral, but it had in fact taken

place after the funeral, which Mr Polanski completely denied. As it could not be

proved, the claimant won £50,000 in damages. There are seven different defences

for the act of defamation, of which two of these, Justification and Fair comment, we

will analyse the advantages and disadvantages below.

For the defence of justification to apply, the defendant must prove that what they

have written and published is substantially true. If this can be proved by the

defendant then they will have a complete defence against the claims of defamation.

The defence of justification may only be used where the defendant has published a

statement of fact.

One of the main disadvantages of the defence of justification is that the burden of

proof relies upon the defendant, which means that they must prove what they have

published to be true. Furthermore, the claimant does not have to prove that what

you have written is false or that any fact found to be false was damaging to their

reputation.

Another disadvantage of this defence is that ‘A defendant cannot rely on the defence

of justification in relation to the publication of the details of spent convictions, as

defined by the