European Court overrules UK in the McLibel case

[Imran Siddiqui]

They are presumed innocent unless the court believes beyond all reasonable doubt that they are guilty, however not producing the evidence for the claim would be a very strong indicator that the evidence didn't exist.

So, in reality, they are presumed guilty, but you are just saying they are presumed innocent? A presumption of innocence means the other guy (the plaintiff) has to prove the case, and if he can't, then you rule for the defendant.

[Bosh]

British libel laws are ridiculous. The person being sued has to prove that they DIDN'T commit libel rather than the other way around.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Drogue
While I agree with this cases verdict, I would also agree that if you make a statement about someone, the burden is on you to show that statement is correct.

How so? Just because the defendent could not or is unwilling to substantiate his statement does not automatically make said statement harmful to the plaintiff.

[Ben Kenobi]

We gave the European court of Human Rights the ability to overrule domestic legal decisions when we signed up to it, its not like the authority is being imposed on us or we've had our legal rights stolen.

Who gave them this ability?

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Oerdin


What I read didn't say the merits of the case was against McDonald's instead the EU court is claiming everyone should get legal aid for civil cases and since this couple didn't get legal aid the case was over turned.

exactly, it wasn't that mcdonalds were wrong, it was a breach of their 'human rights' for them not to granted legal aid to fight the action. i don't like this decision, it means that every crank and crackpot who writes something libellous about someone else (or a company) will have access to public money to defend themselves!

it is certainly true to say also that some (well almost all tbh) of the statements made here about english liable law here are horribly inaccurate.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

They are presumed innocent unless the court believes beyond all reasonable doubt that they are guilty, however not producing the evidence for the claim would be a very strong indicator that the evidence didn't exist.

So, in reality, they are presumed guilty, but you are just saying they are presumed innocent? A presumption of innocence means the other guy (the plaintiff) has to prove the case, and if he can't, then you rule for the defendant.

No, as I said, in reality they are presumed innocent. Yes, the plaintiff has to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. However if the charge is publishing something damaging without evidence, and the defendent refuses to show his evidence, that's a long way towards proving it.

Changing the charge from writing something untruthful and damaging, which is very hard to prove, to writing something damaging without evidence, makes it easier for people to prove they committed that crime.

However as I said, I would far rather have a system that looks at whether what was said was reasonable, as having to prove either way pushes the balance of power too far in that direction, IMHO. But generally, I feel people need to be protected from libel to a greater degree than they are ion most countries, as they are in the UK. I would not favour making it much easier to libel someone and get away with it.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
How so? Just because the defendent could not or is unwilling to substantiate his statement does not automatically make said statement harmful to the plaintiff.

No, but the law requires the statement to be harmful, as my posts have consistently said. If the statement someone makes is harmful I would want some burden on them to show that that statement was correct. I don't think you should publicise statements damaging to someone else that are untrue.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Who gave them this ability?

The dully elected representatives of the people, the same chaps that have the ability to tax, or decide on the internal laws of the country.

Simple, really.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Boshko
British libel laws are ridiculous. The person being sued has to prove that they DIDN'T commit libel rather than the other way around.

It should be a bit of both. You can't just make absurd claims and print them when it is technically impossible to prove or disprove. A newspaper could accuse Mr X of f**king goats. If he sues the newspaper how exactly would he go about proving he is not f**king goats? It's impossible. However if the newspaper has no proof of this accusation, then they are clearly libellous - so in libel the evidence does rest on the accused, because the fact that they made the publication is not in doubt, they have to justify their actions however.