Crosswords1 min ago
Without Prejudice
I have raised a Grievance against my employer and on the Grievance letter put 'Without prejudice' I then listed the reasons for the Grievance which were harassment, bypassing me in my role and on occasions ignoring me. By putting 'Without prejudice' I thought that I would be ok on this matter but one of the Councillors that I have listed in my Grievance has stated to the Council that he wants it taken to a Solicitor as he thinks the content is libellous. I have re-read it and don't think it is but then I am not a Solicitor! Does the Without Prejudice keep you safe should he pursue the matter legally.
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by lel1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Uniquely in English law in a libel case the burden of proof lies with the author/publisher and not the complainant - in other words you. You will have to prove that what you have written is true. The person or organisation you�ve targeted does not have to prove that you�re wrong. It is a common mistake to draw unverifiable conclusions from basic facts if you have not been trained to write non-libellious letters. There is no legal aid for libel cases. As someone has spotted libel I expect that you are guilty. It will turn out to be very expensive for you and can end with a custodial as well.
You can't 'end with a custodial'! It's a civil, not a criminal, matter. The people in libel actions who have ended up in jail were jailed later in a criminal court for perjury e.g, lying on oath or producing forged documents in evidence court in the libel action.
(Nor do I, for one, think that because some laymen thinks that something is libellous it is.)
Believe me, laymen who feel offended are always threatening to go to a solicitor and solicitors are seeing such people all the time. By the time the solicitor has had a friendly chat and soothed the client , explained the subtleties of libel law, explained just how expensive it is to bring an action for defamation and indicated he wants fees up front, that the client will never get all the costs back, and that even if he wins he may be suing a man of straw, the whole thing normally resolves itself! The solicitor, if the client still wants something done, contents himself with writing a stiff lettter demanding an apology and that is that'
That's why libel actions are so rare !
.
(Nor do I, for one, think that because some laymen thinks that something is libellous it is.)
Believe me, laymen who feel offended are always threatening to go to a solicitor and solicitors are seeing such people all the time. By the time the solicitor has had a friendly chat and soothed the client , explained the subtleties of libel law, explained just how expensive it is to bring an action for defamation and indicated he wants fees up front, that the client will never get all the costs back, and that even if he wins he may be suing a man of straw, the whole thing normally resolves itself! The solicitor, if the client still wants something done, contents himself with writing a stiff lettter demanding an apology and that is that'
That's why libel actions are so rare !
.
Ridiculous fred - defamation impacts on peoples lives as much as any other crime. The impact on the good fame and character of a person that defamation can bring is immense. Defamation can ruin peoples careers, relationships and good standing.in the community. It is a crime similar to all other crimes. It is therefore an indictable offence. Defamation actions are not in the least bit rare, generally they are just not media-worthy.
Please don't argue it really isn't worth it, everyone has different opinions. Although looking at a lot of the questions a lot of people seem to disagree with you Mustafa. Thank you for all your responses and I have decided to withdraw my grievance and re-do it slightly tamer, although of course that will probably mean that the gentleman concerned will be able to get away with his harassment and bullying but I don't really want to be taken to Court along with all the other problems he is giving me.
You are both very silly and stupidly arrogant - if you do as you propose in the state of ignorance which you are obviously in then you will run the very serious risk of repeating the libel and you will be in even worse trouble.. If you have in fact published a libel you cannot get out of it now by acting as you propose - that is if you can get out of it at all. The first step in trying to get free is by a process known as "Making Amends". Although it does not have to be accepted by those whom you have allegedly defamed it is a good start. But you will have to find out how to go about it yourself.
Dear me, you are very touchy. I am not the one who is arrogant and I am certainly not stupid. Thank you for your previous advice and I am certainly not asking you to help me on 'making amends'. Perhaps you need to see a Stress Counsellor as you do go off a bit and it can't help your health. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and I am sure the other person that answered the question with his opinion equally feels that he is correct.
That someone thinks that defamation is an indictable offence says a lot. It is not.It's not a criminal offence at all, save that there is, or was, an offence of 'Criminal libel'.Prosecution for that required the Director of Public Prosecutions The one case I recall was then unique in modern times and involved Private Eye and Lord Goldsmith. It needed a certificate from a High Court Judge to say that proceedings were in the public interest ,too The offence is now obsolete. In any case,it may be contrary to Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights, for a member state to have criminal prosecutions for defamationl (: Lingens v Austria 4 E.H.R.R. 378)
No idea what Mustafa Tickl is using as experience or law but it doesn't appear to match the experience of some nor the law as set out in Archbold, Criminal Pleading and Practice.
No idea what Mustafa Tickl is using as experience or law but it doesn't appear to match the experience of some nor the law as set out in Archbold, Criminal Pleading and Practice.
How out of date, Mustafa?My 2006 edition of Archbold refers readers to the editions of that work published pre-1994 'for more detail of this offence' which correctly suggests that criminal libel would not now be the talk of the Temple (and it isn't). Sir James Goldsmith's case against Private Eye was in 1977.Since then, every now and again, some worthy citizen has tried to get criminal proceedings going but not apparently with any great result.
You can imagine just how many of these we'd see if every citizen was using (or abusing) this ancient bit of common law. Every bit of title tattle or slur recorded by a citizen of another would be choking the Crown Courts as 'criminal libel' '.As you appreciate, that doesn't happen: magistrates are not likely to be sending such cases up if they ever see them (and if they did, my bet is that usually the prosecution would intervene not to proceed, a 'nolle'). And those would be the cases, because leave of the Court is required to pursue publishers of newspapers , so it can't be a poor man's easy annoyance of the press.( Archbold para 29-72 et seq if you are interested) The crime is de facto obsolete in England
You can imagine just how many of these we'd see if every citizen was using (or abusing) this ancient bit of common law. Every bit of title tattle or slur recorded by a citizen of another would be choking the Crown Courts as 'criminal libel' '.As you appreciate, that doesn't happen: magistrates are not likely to be sending such cases up if they ever see them (and if they did, my bet is that usually the prosecution would intervene not to proceed, a 'nolle'). And those would be the cases, because leave of the Court is required to pursue publishers of newspapers , so it can't be a poor man's easy annoyance of the press.( Archbold para 29-72 et seq if you are interested) The crime is de facto obsolete in England
1 to 15 of 15
