interestrateripoff Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/simon-cowell-is-gay-tulisa-contostavloss-pa-claims-in-court-9613967.html How does this claim work in court, I'm sure that the press would never publish this claim if it hadn't been made in court because Cowell would most likely sue. In court cases is there something along the lines of parliamentary privilege? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/simon-cowell-is-gay-tulisa-contostavloss-pa-claims-in-court-9613967.html How does this claim work in court, I'm sure that the press would never publish this claim if it hadn't been made in court because Cowell would most likely sue. In court cases is there something along the lines of parliamentary privilege? Yes - if what you say is untrue however, you can be prosecuted for perjury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
interestrateripoff Posted July 18, 2014 Author Share Posted July 18, 2014 Yes - if what you say is untrue however, you can be prosecuted for perjury. So there isn't the defence that what you said you believed to be true it has to be true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Slander is a form of defamation. What, in our enlightened age, is defamatory about saying someone is gay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNACR Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Where's Max Clifford and a salacious tale of a one night stand with a page 3 girl when you need him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Where's Max Clifford and a salacious tale of a one night stand with a page 3 girl when you need him? Perhaps he is organising a Rolf Harris concert hosted by Stuart Hall? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 No, anything said in court is subject to absolute privliage. Perjury is a different matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The XYY Man Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 What, in our enlightened age, is defamatory about saying someone is gay? Exactly. Much better these days if you slag them off for being French. Or maybe Welsh... XYY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 So there isn't the defence that what you said you believed to be true it has to be true? As Goat says, there is absolute privilege to what is said in court - so you can't be sued for defamation nor can someone (newspaper, tv) be sued for reporting on it. If you are, you just plead absolute privilege and the case is chucked out. If what you say is untrue and you know it to be untrue, then that is perjury and you are open to prosecution by the state and not by the individual you told the untruth about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Exactly. Much better these days if you slag them off for being French. Or maybe Welsh... XYY And here was me paying you the compliment of sticking your name on a thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ayatollah Buggeri Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Slander is a form of defamation. What, in our enlightened age, is defamatory about saying someone is gay? Because if either they are not gay, or they are but wish to keep that fact private, saying that someone is gay could cause them significant damage and/or distress. If what you say is untrue and you know it to be untrue, then that is perjury and you are open to prosecution by the state and not by the individual you told the untruth about. Which leaves the subject of what you have said in a difficult position if the state chooses not to prosecute. It is quite possible that a scenario would exist whereby the perjury prosecution of a witness is definitely in the interest of an individual who has been slandered in court testimony, but not necessarily in the broader public interest (too expensive, or the CPS fears that a prosecution would deter people from coming forward as witnesses in the future, etc.), which is the principal criterion the Crown Prosecution Service uses to determine whether or not to prosecute. Presumably, in that situation, the only remedy available to the slander victim would be a private prosecution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.