Sorry to drag this up again but I couldn't let it pass without comment. Several pages ago NGB1066 said this:
1. Jackie's comments about Julie Mugford are only libellous if i) they are untrue and ii) she can demonstrate that her good character has as a result been defamed (on the facts described by her she would struggle on this point alone). It is very significant that Julie Mugford has chosen not to sue.
and this:
Hartley - I did not raise the libel issue. When it was raised, I pointed out the two obstacles Julie Mugford would have to clear before succeeding in a libel action. Neither of us know for sure why she has chosen not to sue, but the fact is that she has not.
That is a common misconception of the way that defamation law works. Well, I say "common", whilst it is common among lay people it is quite rare among lawyers, whatever their speciality.
Firstly, a libellous comment is just a defamatory comment in permanant form - such as the written word. A comment is defamatory if it tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. It is defamatory whether or not it is true. There is no doubt that some of the comments on this forum about Julie Mugford are defamatory.
One defence to a claim of defamation is justification (truth). But the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the statements made are true.
So Julie Mugford does not have two obstacles to clear, she only has one. To show that the statements made would lower her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. The maker of the statements must show that they are true.
This really is school boy law.
Gerald - I do not know where you get your law from but it is rubbish, to put it as politely as I can. To succeed in a libel case the aggrieved party needs to demonstrate that the statements complained of are not in fact true. If the statements are true they are not defamatory. The burden of proof is upon the claimant/aggrieved party to show that the statements are untrue.
As I have stated before Julie Mugford would have two obstacles to cross before succeeding in a libel action. The first is as I have explained above for the second time. The second obstacle is to show that her reputation has genuinely been damaged by the statements. In assessing that the court takes into account her current reputation. Given that if she is to be believed she had advance knowledge of the murders and did nothing to prevent them, then assisted the murderer for a considerable period, obstructing the course of justice and behaving in a callous way towards relatives. The argument could and would no doubt be advanced that her character and reputation in the estimation of right thinking members of the public is already at a very low ebb.
Before you ask, yes I have been involved in defamation cases. I have also advised publishers on libel issues.
Grahame, i'll address this to you.
Firstly, yes i do take my moderating very seriously, that seriously, that as soon as i was informed of post suggesting i could be in trouble, i took legal advice. I assumed this would be legal trouble?
Firstly, you've confimed in a post, that NGB is a barrister, and is currently working for Jeremy Bamber.
NGB i apologise for thinking that you could be an American attorney, but as you had posted law similar US defamatory law, a fair minded person would understand my confusion.
Now, the above quotes have raised eyebrows from my potential legal representative.
Can i ask if NGB is currently being paid by Jeremy Bamber for his work?
Just to add, as it has been suggested that i may be in trouble with a legal problem,(i think thats what the suggestion was), this thread is now potentially evidence. Although photo's have been taken of certain posts, i would ask that no posts are deleted or modified.
Thank you.
