Understanding the law of defamation

 In the wake of rights like freedom of speech and the right to information, as well as the rise of the use of technology and social media for information dissemination, the issue of defamation has become more pressing due to the extent to which a defamatory statement can become widely shared.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, defamation is the act of spreading false information about another person that hurts that person's reputation. Slander and libel are two terms used to describe the act of causing harm to another person's reputation in writing and speech, respectively.

The idea of maligning is a misdeed and misdeed regulation is a common wrong. It is also a collection of laws that make it possible for people to sue for wrongs done to them. Defamation has also been defined in a variety of ways by the courts, which sheds more light on what it means to defamed someone. On account of Youssoupoff v. M.G.M Pictures[1], the meaning of a slanderous material was supposed to be "if any man purposely or vindictively distributes anything recorded as a hard copy concerning another which renders him ludicrous or will in general frustrate humanity from partner or having sex with him it is significant." Similar to this, the definition of defamation was reiterated by Lord Atkin in Sim v. Stretch[2]: "Would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of the right thinking members of the society generally? As can be seen, the focus of his definition is on whether or not a reasonable and objective person would consider the words used to harm the Plaintiff's reputation.

Moreover, a definition proffered in Halsbury's Laws of England[3] states that "A slanderous assertion is an explanation which will in general lower an individual in the assessment of right reasoning citizenry by and large or to make him be evaded or stayed away from or to open him to scorn, hatred or criticism or to pass an ascription on him stigmatizing or harmful on to him in his office, calling, calling, exchange or business".

Besides, the instance of Parmiter v. Couplands[4] characterized criticism to be "a distribution without support or legitimate reason, determined to harm the standing of one more by presenting him to disdain, disparagement or scorn." … " if any man purposely or malignantly distributes anything [in writing] concerning another which renders him ludicrous or will in general thwart humankind from partner or having sex with him it is noteworthy."

It is common law that a written or published defamatory statement is considered "libel"; and making a slanderous statement is referred to as "slander."

The purpose of defamation In the case of Professor E.O. Adekolu v. The University of Development Studies[5], the Supreme Court made the following ruling regarding the tort of defamation: What should be plainly perceived is that, the misdeed of slander is implied and intended to shield people from bogus ascriptions which hurt their standing before the eyes of right reasoning individuals from the general population … ".

Components of maligning

For an assertion, oral or composed, to comprise maligning, as indicated by the instance of Benjamin Kwasi Duffour v. Bank of Ghana and Anor[6] there should accompany no special case:

A statement of fact, and for a statement of fact to be defamatory, it must be based on actual facts and not just an opinion.

A statement and this statement may or may not have been published in print, such as in a book or newspaper. If a third party sees, reads, or hears the statement, it is considered published for the purposes of defamation.

if the statement harmed the plaintiff's reputation, this would be considered an injury.

The assertion has to be false. It isn't sufficient to show that a distributed assertion basically does injury to the offended party; rather, for it still up in the air to be "slanderous", it should likewise be shown that the proclamation is misleading.

The statement does not hold any privileges. A person is exempt from being sued for defamation if they say something that is false and harmful to another party in some circumstances.

Along these lines on account of Owusu-Domena v. Amoah[7] the essential components of a slander suit were illustrated. According to the Honourable Judge Benin JSC, in order for the plaintiff to succeed in proving that a publication was defamatory, they must plead and present evidence on the following points:

(i) that the defendant published the information;

(ii) that the plaintiff was the subject of the publication;

(iii) that the publication could have meant something defamatory in the usual and obvious sense;

(iv) that the publication was defamatory of the plaintiff based on the facts and/or circumstances surrounding it, in addition to or in addition to (iii) above; also,

(v) assuming the respondent looked for the protection of qualified honor or fair remark, that the litigant had been impelled by malevolence, and perniciousness in such matters would be said to exist on the off chance that there was hate or hostility with respect to the litigant or on the other hand in the event that the court found aberrant or ill-advised thought process against the litigant in distributing the words grumbled of.

Since libel and slander protect reputations, a defamatory statement must be published for the plaintiff to claim that his reputation has been damaged. demonstrating that a publication is libelous;

(i) The publication's defamatory potential must be demonstrated. This is depicted in Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort[8] as the "normal and standard signifying" of the words distributed.

(ii) the words used must be shown to be defamatory based on the current facts and/or circumstances.

A plaintiff must demonstrate, typically in terms of money, that their reputation has been damaged. As a result, the court stated in McPherson v. Daniels[9] that "the law will not permit a man to recover damages in respect of an injury to a character which he either does not, or ought not to possess."

The plaintiff in a defamation suit must demonstrate that they have been defamed in accordance with the standard for civil actions, which is the "balance of probabilities" in relation to the fundamental elements of the tort of libel. According to a portion of Section 11 of the Evidence Act[10],

(1) The obligation of a party to present sufficient evidence in order to avoid a ruling against him on the issue is referred to as the burden of producing evidence for the purposes of this Decree.

(4) In different conditions, the weight of creating proof requires involved with produce adequate proof so on all the proof a sensible brain could reason that the presence of the reality was more likely than its non-presence.

In the case of Klah v. Phoenix Insurance Co. Ltd.[11], the Supreme Court concluded that;

“A party does not prove his averment by simply entering the witness box and repeating that averment on oath or having that averment repeated on oath by his witness when a party makes an averment that is capable of proof in some positive way, such as by producing documents, description of things, or reference to other facts, instances, and his averment is denied. He demonstrates it by creating other proof of realities and conditions from which the court can fulfill itself that what he asserts is valid."

It is important to keep in mind that the judgment of "right-thinking members of society," as stated above, is the standard for determining whether a newspaper publication conveyed a defamatory meaning[12]. From this, the plaintiff must establish all of the aforementioned elements by producing documents, descriptions of things, references to other facts, and instances from which the court can satisfy itself that what the plaintiff avers is true. This creates a high threshold that can be challenging to meet at times.

In the case of Benjamin Kwasi Duffour v. Bank of Ghana & Anor[13], a number of defenses exist against an action for defamation. The most effective form of defense is said to be the assertion's truthfulness or justification. This indicates that the defendant's statement is accurate. As a result, the defendant must demonstrate that the statement they made is accurate. An action for defamation cannot be sustained when the statement made against the other person is true or justifiable. An absolute defense against a defamation action is the statement's truth or justification. The defense of truth or justification is established if the defendant demonstrates or justifies the substantial truth of the words complained of. In Wakley v. Cooke[14], the plaintiff was referred to as a "liberal journalist" by the defendant. He demonstrated that the plaintiff had previously been found guilty of libel. The court was of the opinion that the words "habitually libeled people" rather than "held liable on one occasion" meant that the plaintiff was liable. The guard of truth appropriately fizzled in light of the fact that the litigant should legitimize the assertion by showing that the assertion was significantly precise. In a similar vein, the court decided in Buachie v. Samman[15] that the defense of justification should be rejected because it was "not satisfied that a plea of justification has been established."

It's important to remember that proving the truth of a defamatory statement is a full and complete defense. The defendant's carelessness, ignorance, or vengeance are of no consequence; The defendant's motivation for publishing the statement is irrelevant.

The defense of fair comment is the next one. Each man has the option to free discourse and to remark openly, decently and truly on any question of public interest. This indicates that making a statement that is only an opinion and not a factual statement is not defamatory. However, the opinion must be fair and based on accurate facts, and it must be honest and not motivated by malice. According to the old English case of Merrivale v. Carson[16], in which the court noted that "Mere exaggeration or even gross exaggeration would not make the comment unfair," the defense of "fair comment" will be defeated if the facts on which the comment is based are false or the comment itself is unfair. Anyway off-base the assessment communicated might be in place of truth, or anyway biased the essayist, it might in any case be inside as far as possible." In addition, the House of Lords decided in Kemsley v. Foot[17] that the defense should win if honest and reasonable people would come to the same conclusions about the quality of the plaintiff's newspapers as the defendant did. To put it another way, the comment was fair if honest and fair-minded individuals shared that opinion of plaintiff's newspapers.

According to Standard Engineering Co. Ltd. v. New Times Corporation[18], a defendant relying on the defense of fair comment is required to present the specifics of this defense. The court ruled in Benneh v. New Times Corporation and Another[19] that for a fair comment plea to be successful, the words complained of must be demonstrated to be:

(i) A remark.

(ii) Honest in terms of the comment.

(iii) A fair remark on an issue of public interest.

This comment does not cover factual misstatements; rather, it refers to an opinion based on facts. The remark must be made with sincerity. In terms of what constitutes matters of public interest, the case Daily Dispatch and Others v. Bonsu and Others[20] demonstrated that Asanteman was a significant public figure because of his position as Mamponghene and other positions he held. As a result, matters pertaining to him were of public interest. In a similar vein, the court ruled on what it deemed to be a matter of public interest in London Artists v. Littler[21]. There is no established definition of what constitutes a matter of public interest. All we are given is a rundown of models, combined with the explanation that it is for the Adjudicator and not for the jury. It would not fit within my own narrow parameters. whenever a situation is likely to affect a large number of people, causing them to legitimately be interested in or concerned about what is happening; or what might transpire for them or others; Then it is a matter of public interest on which everyone has the right to express their views in a fair manner.

Another safeguard is that the assertion made is totally advantaged. It is applicable to statements made in a particular setting, such as during parliamentary proceedings. Even if the statements were false and the speaker had no malicious intent, defamation cannot be sued in this setting.

Criminal complainants are now protected by the expanded defense of absolute privilege. The purpose of the policy is to make sure that people won't be afraid to file a criminal complaint for fear of being sued for libel if there isn't a conviction. In the case of Westcott v. Westcott[22], this problem was addressed, and Lord Justice Ward summed it up as follows: the specialists recounted above [in the judgment] have clarified that the legitimization for outright resistance from suit will rely on the need for the due organization of law enforcement that grumblings of supposed criminal direct ought to continuously be fit for being made to the police liberated from dread that the individual charged will thusly include the complainant in expensive case. There is a countervailing public interest at play: no one should have their reputation tarnished, and certainly no one should be denied a way to right the wrong. There must be a compromise between these competing demands: Is it sufficient to grant a defense to only the genuine complainant, or is it necessary to cover the event in absolute privilege so that even the malicious complainant will not be held accountable? Another way to say it: is it important to shield from vexatious case those people submitting question of crime even at the expense of once in a while giving that exemption to pernicious and untruthful witnesses? Finding the right balance is difficult. We need to move slowly to expand immunity.

Lord Justice Ward ruled that because "the police cannot investigate a possible crime without the alleged criminal activity coming to their notice," the need for individuals to report crimes without fear of retaliation was paramount. The first step in that process of investigation is to make an oral complaint. Before approaching the police, a potential complainant needs to be aware that their complaint will not be subject to a flank or direct attack in order to be confident that they will receive protection. Immunity should be granted at the conclusion of the procedure, not at the beginning. This is not logical. Any restriction on the right to complain, in my opinion, will seriously weaken the standards of the criminal justice system and be against the public interest. From the moment the criminal justice system gets involved, I believe immunity must be granted. As a result, the time and place at which the oral and written complaints were filed must be absolutely private.

The court stated that an acquittal or the end of an investigation or prosecution does not automatically indicate that an allegation was fabricated. Notwithstanding, in the event that believable proof exists that a charge has been created, the police are compelled by a solemn obligation to examine such a complaint[23].

The qualified privilege defense is another option. In some relationships, this defense lets people talk freely without worrying about being sued for defamation. Thusly, where the individual offering the expression has a legitimate, moral or social obligation to make it and the beneficiary has a relating interest in getting it, then, at that point, the guard of qualified honor emerges. However, if it can be demonstrated that the defamation was motivated by malice, the defense of qualified privilege cannot be sustained. In Toogood v. Spyring (1834)1 CM & R 193, page 194, the court stated, except if it is genuinely made by an individual in the release of some open or confidential obligation, whether legitimate or moral or in the lead of his own undertakings, in issues where his advantage is concerned. … Such communications are safeguarded for the common good and benefit of society if they are honestly made and justifiably warranted by any conceivable circumstance or requirement; and the right to make them has not been restricted in any way by the law."

In this manner, on account of Benjamin Duffour v Bank of Ghana and Realistic Correspondences Gathering Ltd[24] the court demonstrated that for the protection of qualified honor to profit a respondent, it should be laid out that the distribution was made all things considered;

a) in the best interest of the defendant;

b) for the benefit of the person who got the information;

(c) in the normal interest of the producer and recipient of the data; or on the other hand

(d) in the public interest.

So in Buachie v Samman[25], the protection of qualified honor was effective on the grounds that the guard didn't rely on the reality of the claim, however upon whether the conditions of distribution were special, for example whether the assertions were made on a special event to people who had an interest in getting same.

In addition, when there is a duty to communicate the information to an audience and that audience has a reciprocal interest in receiving that information, qualified privilege applies under common law. However, the court ruled in Adam v. Ward[26] that because there was rarely a duty to publish so broadly, qualified privilege could not be established in relation to publications to the entire world. The verdict in that case was that the media had no special obligation to publish[27].

The protection of qualified honor was appropriately examined on account of Reynolds v. Times Papers Ltd[28] where the Court of Allure inspected and established the groundwork for the law of qualified honor and noticed that despite the fact that it is difficult to obviously divide events of honor, the guard advances the "normal comfort and government assistance of society". The Court also considered a number of cases in which it had been determined that defendants' publications to the general public violated qualified privilege[29]. The court's decisions were based on the fact that the issues were important to the public.

The Court decided that the common law of qualified privilege had a three-part test when discussing the proper balance between reputation and free speech:

First and foremost, publishing must be a "legal, moral, or social duty."

Second, recipients need to be interested in receiving the message.

Thirdly, the circumstances of publication must indicate that protecting the communication is in the public's best interest. Public interest has been extensively characterized as "all that which welcomes remarks or which concerns a man as a subject of the domain involves genuine public interest. The conduct of men in public are, without a doubt, matters of public interest, as are all issues pertaining to government [30]. Public Interest has been characterized in the Court of Allure instance of Reynolds v. Times Papers Ltd.[31]as "matters connecting with the public existence of the local area and the people who partake in it, including inside the articulation 'public life' exercises like the direct of government and political life, decisions… and policy implementation, however we utilize the articulation more broadly than that, to embrace matters, for example, (for example) the administration of public bodies, establishments and organizations which lead to a public interest in exposure, yet barring matters which are private and private, to such an extent that there is no open interest in their divulgence."

A journalist's job is to gather information, analyze it, and share it with the public. It's possible that these journalists will be sued for defamation. Consequently, Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd. The following is an "Illustrative" and "not exhaustive" list of factors to take into account when deciding whether a publication was responsible:

“1. The level of seriousness of the claim. If the charge is false, the public will be misinformed more and the individual will suffer more if it is true.

the nature of the information and how much the public cares about the subject matter.

the information's origin. Some informants are unaware of the occurrences. Some are paid for their stories or have their own agendas.

The means taken to confirm the data.

the information's current state. It's possible that the allegation has already been the subject of a respectable investigation.

The desperation of the matter. News is frequently a perishable good.

whether the plaintiff was asked to provide feedback. He might have data others don't have or have not unveiled. A way to deal with the offended party won't be fundamental 100% of the time.

whether the plaintiff's side of the story was adequately represented in the article.

The article's tenor. A newspaper can call for an investigation or raise questions. It is not required to use statements of fact rather than allegations.

The circumstances surrounding the publication, including when it was published.

In most cases, these and any other relevant factors will be given different weights.

Note that malevolence will overcome the guard of fair remark and the protection of privilege.[33] As indicated by Harry Road, The Law of Torts[34] 'Noxiousness' signifies both of the accompanying:

The respondent didn't put stock in that frame of mind of his assertion or was "wildly imprudent whether the assertion be valid or misleading".

Bad intent, personal resentment, or abuse of privilege

If the plaintiff is unable to successfully demonstrate that the defendant was motivated by malice, as was the case in Buachie v. Samman, the case may be unsuccessful.

A plaintiff can seek damages, an injunction, a retraction, or an unqualified apology under customary law. It is essential to point out that libel is actionable in and of itself under common law due to the presumption of damage. By virtue of the assumption, there need be no particular confirmation of damage.[35] Nonetheless, the Court of Allure on account of Benjamin Duffour V Bank of Ghana and Realistic Correspondences Gathering Ltd., depended on Owusu Domena v Amoah where it was reasoned that "[H]e drove no proof to demonstrate how his standing had been harmed according to these individuals. It is highly likely that the aforementioned individuals were naturally concerned about his job loss and called to express their sympathy. This demonstrates that the inquiry regardless of whether to grant harms is at the tact of the court, and the court might for the most part want to see proof of the injury the abusive assertion caused the Offended party. The Court of Appeal ruled in Kofi Coomson v. Lawrence Mingle (2007) that an award of damages in a defamation case should not be used to punish the defendant but rather to compensate the plaintiff for the harm they caused.

Conclusion Defamation is a criminal offense that safeguards reputation. Therefore, in order for a publication to be considered defamatory, it must be demonstrated that the words published have a meaning that is defamatory to a common man, and those words must have had a negative impact on the subject of the defamatory statement.