# Can the police slander someone?



## sluice44 (12 Jul 2006)

On the news this evening, a gentleman was cleared of murder.  The jury declared the man innocent/not guilty but, afterwards, a senior policeman was quoted that, basically, the police were not actively investigating the case further.  I've heard several policeman react in a similar vein several times in the past few years in Ireland and the UK after their suspect was declared not guilty in a court of law.
*
In general, and without referring to any individual cases*, are the police exempt from the slander/libel laws?  If a court declares someone 'not guilty'/innocent, can that individual take exception to a State official implying otherwise?


----------



## DrMoriarty (12 Jul 2006)

That's a very interesting question. In the US, afaik, police officers are immune from prosecution if 'on duty' at the time... a grey area, if ever there was one!


----------



## ClubMan (12 Jul 2006)

sluice44 said:
			
		

> On the news this evening, a gentleman was cleared of murder.  The jury declared the man innocent/not guilty but, afterwards, a senior policeman was quoted that, basically, the police were not actively investigating the case further.


How is that slander?


----------



## runner (12 Jul 2006)

I heard these comments live, and took them to reasonably state that the book was closed on the issue. Slander where?


----------



## daveirl (12 Jul 2006)

sluice44 said:
			
		

> On the news this evening, a gentleman was cleared of murder.  The jury declared the man innocent/not guilty but, afterwards, a senior policeman was quoted that, basically, the police were not actively investigating the case further.  I've heard several policeman react in a similar vein several times in the past few years in Ireland and the UK after their suspect was declared not guilty in a court of law.


I presume this was in the UK? Can't find a link to the story on BBC.


----------



## ClubMan (12 Jul 2006)

[broken link removed]


----------



## Eurofan (12 Jul 2006)

runner said:
			
		

> I heard these comments live, and took them to reasonably state that the book was closed on the issue. Slander where?



I suppose you could read into it and presume that they mean they reckon they had their man but nothing they could do anymore.

Long way from slander though...


----------



## daveirl (12 Jul 2006)

ClubMan said:
			
		

> [broken link removed]


Ah calling them Police confused me!

That doesn't sound like Slander to me at all. Sure it was obvious the guards thought he was guilty already or else they wouldn't have built the case, all the guard said was basically that nothing had changed.


----------



## delgirl (12 Jul 2006)

No, it was in Ireland - a case I've been following for some time and a very surprising outcome! We obviously didn't hear all the evidence the jury heard, still the verdict was a shock.

I think the Guards are within their rights to comment on the progress of a case by saying that 'they are not looking for anyone else in connection with the murder". This could mean that they think he's guilty, but can get a conviction or that they have no other leads.

Either way, someone got away with murder - just like the other case in the Naul which hasn't yet been resolved.

Here's the details of today's verdict.

(Post crossed with Clubman's)


----------



## sluice44 (12 Jul 2006)

Hi Clubman,
I don't want to focus on any particular case.

Murder does not have a statute of limitations (i.e., the case *will* stay open until it's solved).  And the police have an obligation to persue these cases.

In general, a court of law says a man is innocent but, sometimes, in the aftermath, the police say there is no point persuing the case because there are no other suspects.  If I was an individual in a similar case, I would feel aggrieved that a State official suggested the investigation was over, irrespective of what a court of law said.  If I'm innocent, then surely the investigation should be re-opened or, at least, the police should '_keep an open mind_'.


----------



## ClubMan (12 Jul 2006)

sluice44 said:
			
		

> Hi Clubman,
> I don't want to focus on any particular case.


So why did you post these details?


> On the news this evening, a gentleman was cleared of murder. The jury declared the man innocent/not guilty but, afterwards, a senior policeman was quoted that, basically, the police were not actively investigating the case further





> If I was an individual in a similar case, I would feel aggrieved that a State official suggested the investigation was over, irrespective of what a court of law said.  If I'm innocent, then surely the investigation should be re-opened or, at least, the police should '_keep an open mind_'.


You might feel aggrieved but I still can't see how this could ever be considered slander.


----------



## sluice44 (12 Jul 2006)

Didn't realise so many people would reply so quickly!

Slander:  _Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation. _ from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slander

*In general*, I'm arguing that a court found a man _not guilty_ of a crime.  If a policeman says they are not looking for anyone else...2+2=?  It's not like it's a burglary or a 'minor' crime, it's murder where the investigation doesn't stop until they find the culprit.


----------



## sluice44 (12 Jul 2006)

-- I don't want to focus on any particular case --

I wanted to give some background to my thoughts?  Because, imo, jumping right in with 'can the police slander the public' would have people wondering 'heh'??


----------



## DrMoriarty (12 Jul 2006)

Is there anything you'd like to tell us, sluice44...?


----------



## sluice44 (12 Jul 2006)

> Is there anything you'd like to tell us, sluice44...?



Err... I'm listening to Pink Floyd's _The Piper at the Gates of Dawn_ in memory of Syd Barrett's death?

Seriously though, someone posted on AAM today about Gardai smoking in police vehicles.  I watched the news today where a senior Garda made comments that, imo, contradicted what the court said.  Sometimes 2+2=5 and it makes for interesting commentary?


----------



## DrMoriarty (12 Jul 2006)

sluice44 said:
			
		

> Err... I'm listening to Pink Floyd [...]?


Enough said. Lock him up, lads!


----------



## sluice44 (12 Jul 2006)

delgirl wrote:


> I think the Guards are within their rights to comment on the progress of a case by saying that 'they are not looking for anyone else in connection with the murder". This could mean that they think he's guilty, but can get a conviction or that they have no other leads.
> 
> Either way, someone got away with murder - just like the other case in the Naul which hasn't yet been resolved.


Don't know about 'Naul', but with respect, I disagree.  The Gardai are agents of the State and have very special powers (they can deprive you of your liberty etc).  Most people have a relative who's a Garda but they forget their relative is 'the State' once the uniform is on.  

Their words carry extra weight (because they're the State) and sometimes, in terrorist cases, their word is enough to send someone to prison.

*In general, *my concern is that a court of law found a man innocent and a servant of the State disagreed publicly with the court.  If a public servant was so sure of himself, he should be able to prove it publicly in a court of law?


----------



## DrMoriarty (12 Jul 2006)

sluice44 said:
			
		

> ...a court of law found a man innocent and a servant of the State disagreed publicly with the court.


I'm not sure that that necessarily follows, as per ClubMan's post above. People might _infer_ whatever they like from such a statement, but it doesn't look like slander, at least to my (untrained) eye...


----------



## sluice44 (12 Jul 2006)

I'm _untrained_ myself, as you've probably guessed by now!

P.S. I've switched to Pink Floyd's _Ummaguma_ as it's a better album.

If joe public implied that a man was guilty of a crime after he was declared [broken link removed], then nobody would pay attention.  But, *in general*,  when '_the State_' (i.e. a policeman) says something like '_we got the right man but..._'.

Can that individual argue that it is "Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation"


----------



## DrMoriarty (12 Jul 2006)

Careful with that axe now, sluice44...!  

I think the crux of the matter is that the Gárda's (guarded) statement doesn't imply anything; it's purely a matter of what you or I might infer...

Qualified legal opinion, anyone?


----------



## Sunnyboy (12 Jul 2006)

Just because a person was found "Not Guilty" of a crime in Court doesn't mean that they didn't commit it in the first place.

How often have we seen people, obviously guilty, released because the  judge ordered the jury to bring in a verdict of "not guilty" because of some technicality.  

In Scotland, I believe that they can deliver a verdict of "Not Proven",  which is a far more honest and correct finding than "Not Guilty"


----------



## Superman (12 Jul 2006)

Qualified Privilege would apply - it's their duty to give information.

Secondly, there was a defamation case where if I remember correctly a newspaper stated police held some man for questioning.  He sued the newspaper because he said he was defamed by the implication of guilt.  It was held that as the outcome of questioning was not necessarily being put in jail, a right thinking member of society would not assume he was guilty.
(The test for defamation is "does it reduce the standing of the individual in the eyes of right thinking members of society").

Also of note is: the test for defamation is a civil test "on the balance of probabilities", whereas criminal cases are "beyond all reasonable doubt".  So despite the fact that someone is acquited, it does not mean they'll win in the civil court. (As in the O.J. Simpson case).
Secondly, people with criminal records can't fall very far in the eyes of right thinking members of society, so even if there is defamation, they won't be entitled to much damages.


----------



## Jane (12 Jul 2006)

Sunnyboy said:
			
		

> Just because a person was found "Not Guilty" of a crime in Court doesn't mean that they didn't commit it in the first place.


 
This is how I see it also


----------



## daveirl (13 Jul 2006)

Jane said:
			
		

> This is how I see it also


Agreed, people often say things like 'X was found innocent' when the truth is they weren't found innocent they were found 'not guilty'


----------



## Humpback (13 Jul 2006)

Superman said:
			
		

> criminal cases are "beyond all reasonable doubt"


 
For anyone that has the time, the case is described in fairly readable terms here in the ruling by the Supreme Court to quash the original conviction and to order a retrail.

Reading this, it would seem that the test of "beyond all reasonable doubt" was failed.


----------

