Slander

[Coppit]

Theoretical question. If I make outrageous statements I could be liable to an action for slander. Is there any difference should these statements be made in court?

[Zacs-Master]

Define ‘outrageous statements’.

[Jackdaw33]

Actions for slander are virtually obsolete. Unlike libel, you have to prove a physical/financial loss. Also, no legal aid is available in cases of Defamation.

[Coppit]

Outrageous statements here means accusations against an accuser designed to blacken the name of the latter because you feel aggrieved or hope to get some mud to stick.

[New Judge]

You will not get the opportunity to make such statements in court.

[Zacs-Master]

Define ‘accusations’.

[Buenchico]

The term 'slander' isn't recognised in English law. The wording is "defamation". The law states: "A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant", so some apparently 'outrageous' statements might not fall foul of that definition. (e.g.you can probably say almost anything you like about a convicted child murderer as it would be hard to 'cause serious harm to the reputation' of someone who has already lost any valid 'reputation' in the eyes of society).

The law provides a defence of 'honest opinion' if an action is brought in respect of a statement that's 'published' (which can involve nothing more than making it in a public place) which might otherwise be regarded as 'defamatory'. There are other defences prescribed by law. Statements in court aren't specifically protected against action for defamation though. However if a statement given in evidence is clearly false then the person making that statement might well be charged with the criminal offence of perjury (which is far more serious than than the civil matter of defamation).

However the reporting of a statement made in court is covered by 'absolute privilege'. So a newspaper would be free to report any statement made in court, however outrageous, as long as they made it clear that they were only quoting what was said in court.

[Jackdaw33]

I suggest you go back to your law books, Chicho. The tort of defamation covers both slander and libel, although there are differences between the two. Take it from someone who has an LL.B (distinction).

[Buenchico]

^^^ I'll accept, Jack, that the terms 'libel' and 'slander' still exist in those (very) few parts of the 1952 Act which are still in force (such as 'slander of title') but the terms have been dropped from subsequent legislation (which primarily means the 1996 and 2013 Acts).

[malagabob]

I seem to remember somewhere, where a person called a police officer the C word. His defence was he was making an observation, so he couldn’t be charged with anything personal But only possibly with using foul language.

[Peter Pedant]

yikes
slander is still a common law tort - - -
the acts dont replace do they 'instead of' - but "both and"

but no matter - outrageous statements may be actionable depending on what they were -
you dont get legal aid for diddly squat nowadays so that is not very useful

witness statements in court and off are privileged and immune from suit
I liked the idea of ' you dont get a chance to..' hur hur hur

so how on earth did Sir Roy Meadow get struck off for giving crap expert witness testimoney ? good one

and no one so far has mentioned - witness offences
perjury ( needs a witness to the perjured testimony - and is only activated if the verdict needs to be rolled back and starts off wiv 2 y in da slammer wiv yer mates )
and perversion of the course of justice

so we have just about covered everything in bits and pieces ....

and what happenif lawyers lie in court ?
nothing

He told the court that prosecutors had made two mistakes at a bail hearing on 14 July. One was their claim that Haneef's SIM card had been found in a burning jeep at Glasgow Airport when, in fact, it had been found in the possession of the brother of a terrorism suspect in Liverpool. The second error was their accusation that Haneef had once lived with some of the UK bombing suspects, when in fact he had not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhamed_Haneef

certain amount of gubmint shoulder shrugging and that is it

[Peter Pedant]

Jarkie will remember the outrage of a high court judge on being told a defendant wore a shirt wiv 'ACAB' on it
all coppers are ***
but I saw one on the concourse of Piccadilly ( Norf) yesterday
the law changes

yeah case of swearing at the police
was found NOT to be contrary to the Public Order Act
( may have turned on the police and abuser were all alone so one sensitive policeman had to say 'I was shocked - I truly was!')
was Justice Bean I think ( now in the court of appeal - appears on the Supreme court if one of the older ones is ick)
Not guilty - the police just had to put up with it

In my year at Law School (I was doing an -ology - not that bright)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8902770/Swearing-at-police-is-not-a-crime-judge-rules.html