Defamation

Defamation is a Delict defined as The communication of false info to an individual that are detrimental to the honour, character or reputation.

The communication merely must be communicated to the aggrieved party to meet the communication requirement. In Scottish law, as opposed to English law, this may even be in private communication (Ramsay v Maclay & Co (1890)

Determining if a statement is defamatory
This can get complicated, as whether a statement can have a defamatory meaning is a question of law, but whether they are in fact a defamatory statement is a question in fact.

The interpretation must of course be capable of being derived from the text (Dell’Olio v Associated Newspapers (2011)).

In Monson v Taussauds (1894), an alleged murderer who had since been found "not proven", it was held to be libellous to depict an image of the accused in a setting that suggested he may have committed the crime if it would lead people to draw conclusions on guilt.

Statements may be direct, or may just arise from the interpretation of words (from innuendo or circumstances). In Morrison v Richie (1902) a false pronouncement of birth (implying sexual behaviour out of wedlock) was held to be defamatory. In Tolley v Fry (1931) an unauthorised photo of an ammeter sportsperson with a statement implying his endorsement was held to be defamatory as it suggested he "prostituted" his reputation in accepting money for the advertisement.

The article must be considered in its whole, not in just parts. In McAvennie v Scottish Daily Record (2002) a story about an alleged wife beater was held not to be defamatory as the whole article on the allegations was seen to be fair. Curran v Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail Ltd (2001) held that a politics skirmish over a perceived lack of support was not defamatory.

Grounds for Defamation
Imputation on Honest Integrity

Imptuation of Immorality - In AB v XY (1917) a pair of men who spent some time in the toilet together were dismissed with the implication that they may have been having gay sex was held to be defamatory, however with the change in times this may not be true today.

Criminal behaviour - Wray v Associated Newspapers 2000 a character extremely similar to the complainant was seen in the film Rasputin to be "Ravaged".

Implication of Seduction - in Youssoupoff v MGM (1934) a character similar

Imputations on professional Integrity- In Munro v Brown (2011) a curling player was dropped from the national side by the coach (Brown) before a match. The side then lost, and in the questions that followed Brown claimed Munro had refused to play. This was held to be defamatory.

Imputation of an unnceaptable view. - Tamiz v Guardian News & Media Ltd [2013]

Calling someone a liar is not in of itself defamatory Caroll v BBC (1997).

Who can sue for Defamation

 * An Indivudual can sue for injured feeling and patrimonial loss
 * A group can potentially sue, but the smaller the better.
 * Commercial entities can sue ([[North of Scotland Banking Co v Duncan (1857)]

Local and public authorities cannot sue (Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers 1993) but individual councillors can in their own right.

Public figures are expect to take more and defend back in kind McLaughlan v Orr Pollock & Co (1894). However there still can be cases where a case is appropriate such as in Brooks v Lind (2000) where the implication that a non-secret deal was an underhanded secret deal was found to be defamatory.

It is possible for someone who can be misidentified as the target of the article to sue for defamation (E Hulton & Co v Jones (1909))

Defences
Veritas - Truth. This doesn't exclude any other defamatory grounds that are not true in the same statement (Defamation Act 1952); In Fairburn v SNP (1979) it was held that the truth of all statement must be shown in potentially defamatory matrierals, justifying all of the injuries.

In Rixa - In the heat of the moment. In Christie v Robertson following a confused purchase Christie was alleged to be a thief. This defence was accepted.(hug

Vulgar Abuse

Fair Retort

Fair Comment - From Joseph v Spiller (2010) the following must be met
 * Must be on a matter of public interest
 * Must be recognisable as content
 * Must be bsed on facts which are true or proected by privelidge
 * Must explicitly indicate the facts on which it is based
 * The comment must be one which could have been made by an honest person, however prejudiced he may be or exaggerated and obstinate his views.

Parliamentary and Qualified Priveldges - Parliamentary Privelidge is protected in the Defamation Act 1996. Limited priveldige is explored in Lyons v Chief Constable Strathclyde Police (2013) where a claim that the petitioner was defamed by being called a criminal was dismissed on the ground of qualified privelidge.

Reynold's Defence (reasonable reporting) - You can report another's allegation if not endorsed. This was used notably in Galloway v Daily Telegraph (2006).

Amends
Someone who has defamed another can make amends under the Defamation Act 1996, requiring a written offer to make amends citing the act, and whether or not the offer is qualified. it should contain a suitable correction, publish it in a reasonable manner, and pay compensation. Making an offer can be a defence to defamation, but if used as a defence is exclusive of any other ground.