Example papers and sample papers on the most popular topics. Thursday, October 21, Dissertation on Human Rights. Dissertation on Human Rights Having a right means that others have an obligation to respect that right.
It is a privilege that is attained by being exactly what the right pertains to or whom the right is offered to. Therefore, human rights , refers to rights of anyone who fits under the category of humans.
To begin with, rights are not a written code or law, however the laws itself is directly influenced by the rights of certain persons, the law does not directly influence human rights, in terms of existence of new rights. Human rights have a correlation with human nature and with human nature being similar throughout cultures, similar human rights reigns same throughout most countries and can be thought of as absolute, rather than relative.
But human rights can be very subjective because of the diversity of beliefs throughout different cultures. There is not really a complete absolute list of human rights that is in every culture but there is some sort of a consistency of underlying ideas that are similar throughout cultures.
Because of that, sometimes human rights can be perceived as something that is very unclear as to what it really is. G admitted the falsehood of its principal allegation, namely that the particular scheme in question did not involve the avoidance of corporation tax.
G also admitted that the meanings pleaded by T were defamatory. G published a retraction of its principal allegation, stating that T had not been involved in the avoidance of corporation tax but rather an avoidance of stamp duty land tax. G served its defence 21 minutes after making an offer of amends pursuant to the Defamation Act s. T neither accepted nor rejected that offer. The issue for determination was whether T should be compelled to elect either to accept or to reject the offer of amends, and whether its malicious falsehood claim should be stayed as serving no useful purpose.
G submitted that there was no head of damages recoverable in malicious falsehood that T could not recover in the defamation claim and that the malicious falsehood claim was only extant for tactical reasons.
It would make a nonsense of that underlying policy if it were possible for a claimant to go ahead with proving malice whilst keeping an offer of amends available until the conclusion, or throughout the duration, of the trial, Express Newspapers Plc v News UK Ltd  1 W.
T had to accept the offer of amends or else take on the risk of overcoming the statutory defence by proving malice at trial. Furthermore, there was no legitimate reason why T should be allowed to pursue a claim for malicious falsehood. Accordingly, the malicious falsehood claim would be stayed. In context, the words complained of in a libel action were not capable of bearing the meaning attached to them by the claimant. No reasonable reader of the publication would have understood the words complained of as containing serious allegations about the claimant and his charitable donations.
The applicant media corporation G applied to strike out a libel claim brought against it by the respondent musician J. The extract included statements of purported fact and opinion that were attributed to J.
In particular, the extract referred to an annual ball that was hosted by J for the purpose of raising money for a charity C. The article stated that once the costs of hosting the event had been deducted from the proceeds, any remaining money was given to C. G submitted that no reasonable reader would have sensibly thought that the words complained of meant that the money raised by the ball was used to cover the costs of the event and that, thereafter, only a small proportion of the remaining money was made available for charitable objectives.
The designation of the supplement, in which the words complained of were contained, assisted in understanding the extent to which the words could be understood to be factual or not. If such an allegation was being made, a reasonable reader would have expected it to have been made without humour and to have been written explicitly in the part of the newspaper devoted to news.
Unless a reader was exceptionally suspicious or naive, he would be bound to understand that the words complained of were not to be understood as a factual statement as to how the money raised at the ball was spent.
Thus, the words complained of were not capable of bearing the meanings attributed to them by J and consequently, his claim fell to be struck out. A statement in open court was made in an action for defamation following the publication of an article which referred to the claimant.
A statement in open court was made in a libel action brought by the claimant O , a successful music manager, promoter and television presenter, against the defendant newspaper publisher N. N also falsely suggested her motivation for doing so was to fund her exorbitant spending. The allegations were entirely without foundation. N apologised for publishing the false and defamatory allegations and offered to publish an apology.
N also agreed to pay O substantial damages and her legal costs. A statement in open court was made in a libel action brought by the claimant M , an 18 year old student, against the defendant newspaper publisher N. N had published articles falsely alleging that the day after the conviction of a man B for the murder of an 11 year old boy, M had publicly praised him in a television interview as a hero.
N agreed to pay M a substantial sum in damages which she intended to donate to the Rhys Jones Memorial Trust. Permission to withdraw the record was requested. A statement in open court was made in proceedings for defamation following the publication of a newspaper article which referred to the claimant. A statement in open court was made in a libel action brought by the claimant R against the defendant newspaper publishers N.
N had published an article in its newspaper and to its website wrongly alleging that R had ordered passengers off of his bus in order for him to pray. The article suggested that R was arrogant, unprofessional and contemptuous of the passengers.
The article further alleged that the passengers later refused to re-board the bus as they spotted a rucksack and feared R was a fanatic. In fact, R had prayed on the bus during his statutory break and no passenger was inconvenienced. N accepted the allegations were false and published an apology.
N paid R a sum in damages and covered his legal costs. A statement in open court was made in an action for defamation following the publication and broadcast of articles which referred to the claimant.
A statement in open court was made in a libel action brought by the claimant H against the defendant newspaper publishers and broadcaster N. The overall impression was that H allegedly had failed to exercise proper parental supervision over the party. In fact, all the allegations were false. There was no basis to accuse H of failing to exercise proper supervision. N apologised for publishing the false allegations and had published apologies in their respective newspapers or on their websites.
N also agreed to pay H substantial damages and her legal costs. The court declined to restrain a newspaper from revealing the identity of a blogger, which it had deduced from publicly available sources, because that information did not have about it the necessary quality of confidence, nor did it qualify as information in respect of which the blogger had a reasonable expectation of privacy, essentially because blogging was a public activity.
A statement in open court was made in a libel action brought by the claimant J against the defendant newspaper publisher T. T had published an article in its newspaper and on its website which falsely alleged that J had leaked information to the media before the Iraq war. In fact, J had been singled out by the Chairman of the House of Commons Select Committee investigating leaks in Whitehall as someone who did not, and would not, leak information.
A statement in open court was made in an action for defamation following the publication of an article by a newspaper which referred to the claimant. A statement in open court was made in a libel action brought by the claimant Z against the defendant newspaper publisher G. Z was the President of South Africa.
G had published an article in an edition of its newspaper and on its website which falsely alleged that Z was guilty of various crimes. Z issued libel proceedings and G subsequently published an apology accepting that Z was acquitted of one of the offences and the others were dropped by the South African National Prosecuting Authority. Z did not consider that the apology adequately dealt with his complaint. The apology was said to be published far less prominently in the newspaper and on the website than the article complained of.
G then made an offer of amends. In light of the fact that G was willing to pay very substantial damages to Z and it had publically apologised to Z, Z considered his reputation in the matter had been entirely vindicated and he was prepared not to proceed any further in his action against G. The ordinary reasonable reader would see the words as nothing more than the expression of a permissible view.
The applicant newspaper publisher T applied for a ruling that the words complained of by the respondent fashion designer E in her libel action were not capable of being defamatory. If the opinion of the speaker was acceptable the phrase did not necessarily impute a dislike or disparagement of a person holding a contrary view.
T submitted that even if the phrase connoted such an imputation, that in itself would not make the item defamatory. An order requiring that certain newspapers disclose to a brewing company documents that could lead to the identification of journalistic sources who had leaked information about a takeover bid violated the European Convention on Human Rights art.
HM Treasury v Youssef. In the circumstances, there was a powerful general public interest in identifying M which justified curtailment of his art 8 rights.
Summary judgment was granted to a defendant newspaper publisher in a claim for libel on the basis of justification. The applicant newspaper publisher N sought summary judgment on a libel claim brought by the respondent X.
X was a civil servant employed by the Treasury. N published the fact that X had been suspended from his employment following the posting of remarks on his personal blog. X pleaded that the publications had the defamatory meaning that X was a hardline Islamic extremist who supported the killing of British and American soldiers in Iraq by fellow Muslims as justified. N argued that a jury would be perverse not to hold that the blogs in question justified the inference against X.
X submitted that he should be permitted to adduce evidence of his background and other blogs to demonstrate that he was not hardline or extremist. It was necessary to have in mind the role of a jury not only in coming to conclusions of primary fact but also in drawing any appropriate inferences, Bataille v Newland  EWHC QB applied.
X had taken the position that the killing of American and British troops in Iraq would be justified by his interpretation of jihad. As it was a matter of construing plain language in its overall context, it would be perverse to take a contrary view. In those circumstances the claim could legitimately be categorised as bound to fail. Such an exercise could not change or qualify the plain meaning of the blog in question.
A newspaper article did not amount to defamation where, having regard to its timing and context, its contents could be characterised as fair retort, and qualified privilege therefore attached. A member of the Scottish Parliament C sought damages from a newspaper company D in respect of alleged defamatory comments contained within articles based on interviews with another member of the Scottish Parliament S who had previously belonged to the same political party as C.
D moved for dismissal, submitting that 1 criticism by one MSP of another did not amount to defamation because of the permitted latitude in criticising those who hold public office and the article had to be read as a whole, the test being whether the words used in it tended to lower the pursuer in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally; 2 in any event, the comments made in the article were protected by qualified privilege in the form of fair retort to the attack made upon S by C and her colleagues.
It was arguable that a professional sportsman could be libelled by suggestions that he lacked skill or was incompetent. Any application for summary judgment in a libel case is difficult — because any seriously disputed issues of fact or meaning have to be left to the jury — nevertheless, the case is a remarkable one and it is not surprising that an application was made.
A statement in open court was made in an action for defamation following the publication of a newspaper article which referred to the claimant. A statement in open court was made in a libel action brought by the claimant G against the defendant newspaper publisher N. The article falsely alleged that G had lied in both her book and the interview about her ex-husband forcing himself upon her sexually and acting violently towards her. In fact, the allegations were entirely untrue.
N apologised and agreed to pay G damages along with her legal costs. A statement in open court was made in proceedings for defamation following the publication of a headline which referred to the claimant. A statement in open court was made in a libel action brought by the claimant M , a writer and feminist, against the defendant newspaper publisher N.
N had published an article in its newspaper and on its website that was written by M, however the headline inserted by N falsely alleged that M had been a prostitute or had otherwise been involved in the sex industry. The allegations were completely untrue. N published an apology in the newspaper and online. N agreed to pay M damages along with legal costs. A statement in open court was made in an action for defamation following the publication of articles which referred to the claimant.
A statement in open court was made in a libel action brought by the claimant L against the defendant newspaper publisher E. E did not provide L with any warning that it intended to publish the articles, or any indication of their contents. The statements were false and caused L considerable upset and distress. E retracted the allegations, agreed not to republish the articles and apologised to L. E also agreed to pay L substantial damages and his legal costs.
As long as the true position was made clear by the writer to the prospective reading public, the standards to which a writer wrote were simply a matter of choice of one product over another and therefore to impute to a writer that they wrote to one standard rather than another could not of itself be defamatory.
The applicant newspaper X applied for summary judgment of an action for libel commenced by the respondent book author T. Whilst researching her book, T had conducted several interviews. She maintained in her particulars of claim that the statement also suggested a second defamatory meaning, namely that she had shown herself to be untrustworthy and fatally lacking in integrity and credibility as a researcher and writer. The court was required to determine, for the purposes of both CPR r.
X submitted that in order to be actionable as business defamation and defeat defences of justification and fair comment, words had to do more than injure a claimant in the way of their office, profession or trade.
X contended that as copy approval was not illegal or contrary to any professional code, the allegation did not amount to business libel because it was not serious enough to pass the required threshold of seriousness. The inquiry involved in deciding whether the Reynolds defence applied to a defamatory statement was a matter of judgment which raised a question of law to which there was only one right answer.
It was not an exercise of discretion, and could therefore be a matter for an appellate court. A statement in open court was made in a libel action brought by the claimant actor and DJ G against the defendant publisher E.
E had published an article in one of its newspapers that falsely suggested that G had been drunk and intent on causing trouble at a party and that, as a result, he had been removed from the party by security guards. In fact, the allegations were entirely false. E accepted that the allegations were untrue and should not have been published.
E agreed to pay G damages and his legal costs. A statement in open court was made in an action for defamation following the publication of an article which referred to the claimants.
A statement in open court was made in a libel action brought by the claimant trustees T of a charity against the defendant newspaper publisher E. E had published an article on its website about a terrorist attempt to blow up an aeroplane.
The article falsely suggested that the Palestinian Relief and Development Fund, commonly known as Interpal, a charity registered in the United Kingdom of which T were trustees, was Hamas supporting, notwithstanding that Hamas was deemed a terrorist organisation under UK anti-terrorism legislation, and thereby wrongly suggested that T aided terrorism.
E apologised for publishing the false and defamatory allegations and accepted that they should never have been published. E agreed to pay T substantial damages and their legal costs.
The applicant newspaper publisher T applied for a libel action by the respondent footballer R to be stayed as an abuse of the process of the court.
R was claiming that an article published by T falsely stated he had drunk lots of champagne and danced at a nightclub shortly after an ankle operation, thereby suggesting he was unprofessional and reckless. In the meantime, another newspaper publisher M which had published a similar article had reached a settlement with R. In a statement in open court, it was said that M accepted the allegations it had published were untrue, R had been paid substantial damages and he considered himself to be fully vindicated.
T submitted that following the vindication of R in his action against M, his instant claim no longer served the legitimate purpose of protecting his reputation. The applicant nightclub owner X applied to set aside an order staying libel proceedings brought against the respondent newspaper publisher Y and Y cross-applied to strike out the claim. X owned a nightclub that had had its alcohol licence revoked by the relevant local authority after the police discovered evidence of illegal activities on the premises.
X commenced libel proceedings against Y. The principle meaning complained of was that words used in the articles suggested that X had been involved in criminal activity. A master determined that X had failed to provide necessary details to support his claim pursuant to CPR r. Consequently, the master determined that the case, as formulated, infringed r. Application refused, cross-application granted.
His claim for damages bore no relation whatever, either to the law or reality. The master was entitled to conclude that the action was in fact worth no more than a nominal amount if anything at all. Even if X were given another opportunity to put his claim in proper form, and if he limited his claim to general damages, it would, on its merits, have no real prospect of success see paras 32 of judgment. A former member of Parliament was not entitled to summary judgment on her claim alleging defamation by a newspaper in respect of an article which bore the meaning that she had milked the Parliamentary expenses system and that her criticism of a proposed reform to the expenses regime was apt, rightly, to provoke public anger.
A statement in open court was made in proceedings for defamation following the publication of an article about the claimant actor.
A statement in open court was made in a libel action brought by the claimant actor S against the defendant news network W. W had published an article which falsely claimed that S had declared in an interview that Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler was a good person. The allegation was false and without any foundation.
In fact, S believed that Hitler was a vile and heinous man. W agreed to apologise for the distress and embarrassment caused by the allegations, which it acknowledged were false. W also agreed to pay an amount of damages to S for the libel.
S intended to donate the award of damages to charity. There was a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to sexual activities, albeit unconventional, carried on between consenting adults on private property.
The claimant M sought damages from the defendant newspaper publisher N for breach of confidence and the unauthorised disclosure of personal information which infringed his rights of privacy as protected by the European Convention on Human Rights art. M was the President of the FIA. The articles alleged that the sessions had a Nazi theme and mocked the way that Holocaust victims had been treated in concentration camps.
M contended that the content of the published material was inherently private in nature and that there had also been a pre-existing relationship of confidentiality between the participants as they had all known each other for some time and had taken part in their activities on the understanding that they would be private and that none of them would reveal what had taken place.
M alleged that E had breached that trust. M denied that the event had had any Nazi theme or anything to do with concentration camps. M had a reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to sexual activities, albeit unconventional, carried on between consenting adults on private property. The clandestine recording of sexual activity on private property engaged the rights protected by art.
Moreover, E had owed a duty of confidence to M and the other participants. Those who participated in sexual or personal relationships might be expected not to reveal private conversations or activities. E had, therefore, committed a breach of confidence as well as a violation of the art.
There was no genuine basis at all for the suggestion that the participants had mocked the victims of the Holocaust. Whilst there had been bondage, beating and domination typical of sado-masochistic behaviour, there was no public interest or other justification for the clandestine recording, for the publication of the resulting information and still photographs, or for the placing of video extracts on the website, all of which had been done on a massive scale.
Although such behaviour was viewed by some people with distaste and moral disapproval, in the light of modern rights-based jurisprudence that had not provided any justification for the intrusion on the personal privacy of M. However, it was not right to extend the application of exemplary or punitive damages into the field of the right to privacy or to include an additional element specifically directed towards deterrence.
That was not a legitimate exercise in awarding compensatory damages. No amount of damages could fully compensate M for the damage done to him and what could be achieved by a monetary award in the circumstances was limited. Any award had to be proportionate and avoid the appearance of arbitrariness. A statement in open court was made in proceedings for defamation following the publication of an article which referred to the claimant. A statement in open court was made in a libel action brought by the claimant football agent C against the defendant publisher D.
In fact, C had advised the player to sign his current contract and stay at Celtic. D also alleged that C had set up deals that took other Celtic players to the Midlands. D accepted that all of the allegations made were totally without foundation and should not have been published. D published an apology and withdrawal on its website, paid C substantial damages and covered his legal costs. A statement in open court was made in proceedings for defamation following the publication of an article that referred to the claimant member of the Barbados Parliament.
A statement in open court was made in a libel action brought by the claimant member of the Barbados Parliament M against the defendant publisher P. P had published an article in one of its magazines in which reference was made to a Barbadian calypso song that suggested M had assaulted another woman. In fact, M had never assaulted anyone in the manner described in the article or at all.
Further, the suggestion of assault in the song was based on a totally unfounded rumour. A statement in open court was made in an action for defamation following the publication of an article that referred to the claimant.
A statement in open court was made in an action for libel brought by the claimant M against the defendant publishers B. Both the video and the article falsely alleged that there were strong grounds to believe that M, who was resident in the area when Madeleine disappeared, was guilty of abducting her.
They also falsely suggested that M deliberately tried to mislead journalists by pretending to be acting in an official capacity for the police. In fact, M was heavily involved in the search for Madeleine after her disappearance and was recruited by the police to act in an official capacity as an interpreter. B acknowledged that the allegations made were entirely false and that M played no part in the abduction of Madeleine.
B also acknowledged that M did not behave like a child murderer nor did he try to mislead or lie to journalists. B agreed to publish an apology on its website for a period of 12 months and to pay substantial damages to M as well as covering his legal costs.
Absolute privilege under the Defamation Act s. The appellants C appealed against a decision of a master to strike out their libel claim against the respondent newspaper publisher N. Three days after a final county court hearing about a nuisance action brought against C by their neighbours, N had published an article about the hearing.
The article also referred to court hearings that had taken place a few months previously. A photograph appeared in the article accompanied by a caption. C alleged that the caption contained an emotive phrase which was not an accurate representation of the findings of the county court judge. He also found that no reasonable jury could come to a finding other than the words were substantially true and the plea of justification was bound to succeed.
Absolute privilege would also extend to the reporting of the earlier hearings at least insofar as it was reasonably necessary to give context to what took place at the county court hearing and to enable readers to understand the contemporaneous report of the court hearing.
In other words, that coverage should be construed as forming an integral part of the contemporaneous report. The offending caption to the photograph would also be treated as part of the attempt to report, fairly and accurately, the outcome of the trial and would, therefore, attract qualified privilege. In particular, the caption to the photograph should be read in the context of the article as a whole; it was not appropriate to interpret headlines or captions as though they stood on their own, Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd  2 A.
It was therefore strictly not necessary for him to go on to address the matter of justification. However, he was entitled to reach the conclusion that the plea of justification was bound to succeed. Westminster Press  1 W. A judge had erred in striking out a claim for libel as an abuse of process. He had wrongly made findings of fact which should have been left to trial after full disclosure had occurred. The appellant M appealed against a decision to strike out his claim for libel made against the defendant foreign newspapers N and H as an abuse of process.
N and H had published an article which referred to M concerning events which had taken place approximately 40 years earlier. M had claimed that the article had been published in the jurisdiction of England and Wales and he issued libel proceedings.
However, the parties disputed the extent and forms of publication that had allegedly occurred. N and H applied for the proceedings to be struck out. The judge found that M stood no real prospect of establishing that there had been a hard copy publication by H.
In allowing the applications, he considered the costs, resources and time that would be involved in the claims going to trial, that the article concerned matters that had happened 40 years ago and found that there had been publication to, at the most, two hundred people.
M further contended that the judge had been too ready to make findings of fact on contested evidence and to conclude that there had been no real or substantial tort. It was inappropriate for a finding of fact to be made about the scale of publication on the basis of incomplete evidence.
The finding of fact was a matter which should have been left to trial. Furthermore, even if there had been publication to the number of people N alleged, there was no basis for concluding that there was no real and substantial tort.
The court could not refuse that opportunity. Investigating the scale of publication further could be very expensive. If that had to be carried out and yielded no evidence of a wider readership that N and H currently admitted, it might be that M would have to bear the cost of such investigations which would almost certainly exceed any sum awarded in damages.
However, that was a risk that M would have to take. The allegations made could not be dismissed as trivial. Moreover, even if defamatory allegations related to events of long ago, that could not be a ground in itself for refusing access to justice, Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Ltd  UKHL 10,  1 W. The circumstances could not be characterised as an abuse of process. A joint statement in open court was made in proceedings for defamation following a radio broadcast that referred to the claimants.
The BBC had broadcast a radio breakfast show that featured a contribution from a sports journalist H. H wrongly alleged that Z and C had attended an interview for management positions at an alternative football club, which would have constituted a breach of their contracts of employment and, in the case of Z, breach of FA Premier League rules.
In fact, the allegations were completely untrue. The BBC apologised for the false allegations and agreed to pay Z and C damages and their legal costs.
A statement in open court was made in an action for defamation following the broadcast of a programme which referred to the claimant. A statement in open court was made in a libel action brought by the claimant B against the defendant BBC. The BBC had broadcast a programme in which a panellist alleged that the leadership of a Muslim organisation, of which B was leader and chief spokesperson, had failed to condemn the kidnapping and killing of British soldiers and thereby implicitly condoned such acts.
The panellist further alleged that B believed the kidnapping and killing of British soldiers to be a good and Islamic thing. In fact, B did not condone the kidnapping and killing of British soldiers and did not believe this would be a good or Islamic thing to do, and in B had said publicly that the killing of British troops in Iraq was unacceptable.
The BBC apologised for the false allegations. It also agreed to pay B substantial damages, which he would donate to a charity, and his legal costs. A statement in open court was made in a libel action brought by the claimant P against the defendant newspaper publisher M. M had published an article in an edition of its newspaper and on its website which alleged that P had made inappropriate advances towards a woman in a night club whilst he was still together with his wife.
In fact, as M accepted, the allegations were untrue. All that happened was that P was introduced to the woman and a photograph was taken of them together. P spoke to the woman very briefly. M apologised for the hurt and damage suffered by P as a result of the publication of the article. A website article summarising a hearing in the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal was absolutely privileged, being a fair, accurate and contemporaneous report of legal proceedings. No appearance or representation.
The court had no jurisdiction to grant an interim injunction prior to the issue of proceedings to prevent the broadcast of a television documentary where the application was neither urgent nor in the interests of justice. The application could not be described as urgent where the broadcasters had already agreed not to show the documentary. Where the claimant in a libel action had a background of serious criminal convictions, he had no reputation capable of protection and his claim had to be struck out under CPR r.
A statement in open court was made in a libel action brought by the claimant property developer B against the defendant publisher M. M had published an article in its newspaper and on its website that suggested that B had viciously attacked a female model X to such an extent that injuries to her face were so severe that her career as a model was almost certainly over.
M apologised for publishing the false and defamatory allegations and accepted that B had neither attacked X nor caused any injuries to her face. M agreed not to republish the allegations, and agreed to pay B substantial damages and to pay his legal costs.
The court awarded damages for defamation to a Russian businessman and politician who had been accused, in a television programme broadcast by a state-owned Russian television company, of involvement in the murder of the former Russian security agent, Alexander Litvinenko.
A statement in open court was made in a libel action brought by the claimant businessman R against the defendant newspaper publisher G. G had published in its newspaper and on its website false allegations about R that he had suffered a heavy loss in a poker game and had been forced to hand over a luxury yacht to cover his gambling debt.
G accepted that the allegations were wholly unfounded and untrue and apologised to R for the distress and embarrassment caused to him. G agreed to publish a correction and pay R substantial damages, which he intended to donate to charity, and his legal costs. The court was required to determine the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimant actor B in respect of distress caused to him by a defamatory article published by the defendant M.
M had published an article on its website about B, suggesting that he had been romantically involved with an actress. B complained that the article was untrue and that he was in a serious relationship with another person. M published an apology soon after. Prior to the issue of proceedings, M made an unqualified offer of amends pursuant to the Defamation Act s.
When determining appropriate compensation the courts had adopted a two-stage process: There was no evidence about the number of readers who would have understood the article in a defamatory sense, but it was reasonable to assume that the scale of publication would be much lower than in the case of a natural and ordinary defamatory meaning published in a national newspaper, so it would be right to take a conservative approach.
As libel cases went, it was at the less serious end of the scale. The hurt that could be caused by a false allegation of adultery, however, should not be discounted, and there was no doubt that B had taken the suggestion seriously and incurred embarrassment and some genuine distress. Yet the libel was short-lived and the court had seen no hard evidence that his reputation had actually suffered. Choosing the right bracket or figure for compensation was largely a matter of impression and personal evaluation, although it was legitimate to take into account personal injury awards for pain, suffering and loss of amenity.
A statement in open court was made in a libel action brought by the claimant G against the defendant newspaper publisher, newspaper editor and assistant editor M. M had published articles in their newspapers and on their websites that falsely suggested that G had harassed and stalked a nurse; had become obsessed with a TV presenter and said that he loved her; had become obsessed with another TV presenter and threatened to pester and harass her; and had illegally attempted to obtain drugs from a hospital.
M apologised for publishing the false allegations and agreed to withdraw them. M also agreed to pay G substantial damages and to pay his legal costs. Libel claims determined by convention arguments. Murray v Express Newspapers Plc Also known as: Law ; 20 L. Cases and Materials Longman: There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Ltd  2 W. Cambridge, New York , Melbourne , Madrid. Vernons Organisation  1 W. Corruption in Tory Britain Fourth Estate.
On the application of Telegraph Group plc vs Sherwood  1 W. Netherlands 8 E. Shayler  2 W. Oxford, New York p. Cases and Materials Pearson Longman: Justice Tugendhat has had as the top libel judge given that he was appointed on 1 st October London and New York. If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Including student tips and advice. You must be logged in to post a comment. Background and overview A. A right to Privacy in the UK prior to ? Freedom of expression and UK newspapers: Article 8 and Article 10 A. Libel in the UK A. Libel and the Press: Secondary case law research into British newspapers and libel a Overview of the case law January — March France and privacy A.
Declaration of the Rights of Man and the tort of privacy B. France and the UK: The effect of Articles 8 and 10 and the future A. Has the Human Rights Act changed the media law landscape? The Draft Defamation Bill C.
Human rights assignments of writing dissertation are assigned to the students of management to handle the rights of employees in an organization. Human Resource Assignment Help given by Students Assignment Help to complete dissertation is very important for students/5(K).
Aug 31, · Example human rights dissertation topic 7: Religious discrimination: An exploration of the requirement to sing the national anthem and pledge to God in optional social groups and organisations. In , the story of young George Pratt's refusal to say the Boy Scouts' pledge to God made national headlines on the pretext of the group's .
Human rights are related to the human nature. Subsequently, the rights which were recognized thousands of years ago are still recognized in one or other form. With the evolution, however; the rights have increased as per the needs of the people. If you need help with the Topic and Titles for your own dissertation then our writers are avilable to help. Human Rights and Immigration Law Dissertation Topics. This section .
essay writer forum Help On Dissertation Human Rights online writing service how to write a job application letter via email. A List Of The Most Popular Dissertation Topics On Human Rights. Writing a dissertation may be one of the largest, singles tasks ever faced by a .