Page 43 - Law and the Media

Law and the Media
Anita and Gordon Roddick and their company Body Shop successfully sued Channel 4 over
allegations in a programme questioning the Body Shop’s stance against animal-free testing
and the sales methods of their staff.

A political party cannot maintain an action for defamation of character, as it would be against
public policy (Goldsmith v Bhoyrul (1998)). Central and local government institutions cannot
sue for defamation in respect of their administrative and governmental functions, but the
individual leaders of those bodies can sue if the allegation against the body points to the
individual (Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd (1993)).

Where a defamatory statement is made about a group of people, the question of whether an
individual member of that group can sue depends on the facts of each case. The main factor
to be considered by the court is the size of the group and how closely the individuals in that
group are associated with the statement. In Riches v News Group Newspapers Ltd (1986), the
News of the World reported a story concerning a gunman who was holding hostages to
publicize his deranged belief that policemen at Banbury CID had raped and beaten his wife.
Although the story did not name any individual officer, it identified the group from which the
alleged rapist came. There were only 10 members of the Banbury CID. All 10 officers sued
the News of the World and won.

1.2.5 Who may be sued?

Any person who causes or is responsible for the publication of a defamatory statement can
be sued. This includes writers, broadcasters, editors, producers, publishers, programme
makers, printers, distributors, newsagents and booksellers. Since each separate communica-
tion to a third party is a separate publication and therefore a separate libel, the number of
people who may be sued over the same defamatory statement can be considerable.

1.2.6 What is defamatory language?

There is no single, comprehensive definition of defamatory language recognized by law. The
determination of defamatory meaning is always an objective test, never a subjective test. This
means that the court must give consideration to what the ordinary, reasonable person would
think about the defamatory statement, not what the claimant actually thinks.

An allegation by the claimant that the defendant’s statement ‘tends to lower the claimant in
the eyes of right thinking members of society generally’ necessarily involves an element of
moral blame (Sim v Stretch (1936)). Because the test is geared towards what ‘right thinking
members of society generally’ consider to be defamatory language, the proper standard to be
applied will adapt with the passage of time to reflect the change in society. A statement found
by a jury to be defamatory 75 years ago may be considered perfectly acceptable today.
Nowhere is this demonstrated better than in society’s attitudes towards sexual matters. An
6