Libel in the UK is a strict liability tort, the statement can be 100% justified based on the information in hand when it is made, and even if the court would agree with that were it permitted to consider it, if the court finds it is false based on information that the defendant did not have (or even could not possibly have had, no matter how hard they sought it) at the time of the statement, the defendant will still be liable.
EDIT: while the NY Times v. Sullivan rules for public officials (extended by other cases to public figures) get more attention, the Gertz v. Welch rule that, as a matter of Constitutional law, requires fault for defamation liability for private figures is arguably more fundamental difference between the US and UK on defamation law.
It's hard to see how any of this is false under the US standards. In the UK, though... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law
> everyone involved in the dissemination of the defamation is liable as having published it
(That wouldn't fly here; retweeting a false claim, barring unusual circumstances, tends not to be actionable.)
The actual allegations weren't litigated in this case, it's a settlement, and I don't doubt it made more sense to say "sorry" and pay £5k/person than to spend years in court litigating a crime that is typically done in a way that leaves little physical evidence that someone else asserted happened.
Even when you win, you lose! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_v_Penguin_Books_Ltd Millions in legal fees, two years spent proving the case, and he declares bankruptcy when fees are awarded.
You are taking their claims at face value. It doesn't matter what standards you apply other than truthfulness, and these claims could still be false. There's no substantiation provided, merely the claim that such exists. A court case in the US would still require them to provide that substantiation, otherwise their claims could be considered libel. While the libel laws in the US and UK differ, it is not legal either in the US to defame someone either knowingly or negligently.
They are entitled to that presumption until evidence emerges otherwise. (This is not the case in the UK!)
> A court case in the US would still require them to provide that substantiation, otherwise their claims could be considered libel.
No. A court case in the US would require Pretty to show evidence they had reason to believe the information was false for them to be liable for defamation.
The Catholic priest makes sure he and the altar boy are the only ones in the church. The coworker who makes unwelcome advances is careful to do it verbally when there aren’t witnesses. The abusive spouse leverages psychological traumas to make their partner feel crazy.
The basic legal standard is crimes/torts in court have to be proven. English law violates it in defamation cases.
Why is only one side “entitled to that presumption”? In most common law countries, including both the US and UK, there is a presumption of innocence when someone faces an accusation, their guilt must be proven with evidence.
You are providing heavier weight and benefit to one claim over the other, and that weight is going towards an accusation that presents no substantive evidence. That’s your prerogative, but it is philosophically misaligned with a fact-based approach to the law.
You are mistaken that this was not libel in the US. Even in the US, the law and precedent is clear, you cannot go around claiming someone is guilty of a crime they’re not convicted of, actively seek to prevent them from being employed, and explicitly cause their dismissal from their means of livelihood. That establishes clear damages, and if you have no evidence to support your claim, not even the lower burden of proof that would prevail in a civil matter, you would lose if sued for libel and defamation. Once damages and either willful disregard, negligence, or malice are established, all elements are present.
In the legal system, yes.
Outside it, no. I don’t have to hold a court proceeding to ground my kid or tell people my neighbor is a dick. There isn’t any right to due process in the court of public opinion; there never has been.
In the UK, defamation law DOES NOT PROVIDE A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. That is the precise problem. It is highly unusual in that regard. The burden of proof is on the DEFENDANT.
> Even in the US, the law and precedent is clear, you cannot go around claiming someone is guilty of a crime they’re not convicted of, actively seek to prevent them from being employed, and explicitly cause their dismissal from their means of livelihood.
You absolutely can. People can call OJ a murderer. Claiming he was convicted of it might rise to libel.
Nothing in the open letter asserts he was convicted of a crime. If it were libel to assert someone committed a crime before their conviction for it, prosecutors would… be in trouble.