Can the police slander someone?

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"

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.

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.

Click to expand...

This is how I see it also

Jane said:

This is how I see it also

Click to expand...

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

Superman said:

criminal cases are "beyond all reasonable doubt"

Click to expand...

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.