united-kingdom defamation scotland publishing acquittal
Argument on possible defamation after court acquittal
<p>I have been discussing some reporting of a high-profile trial with some colleagues.</p>

<p>We disagree on one point.</p>

<p>Background: High-profile figure acquitted by a Scottish court of a number of sexual assault charges of varying degrees of seriousness.</p>

<p>The trial hears evidence that the accused was guilty of some inappropriate behaviour, acknowledged by defence council.</p>

<p>One comment in an article, overwhelmingly hostile to the accused and with numerous comments where the writer appears to imply that the process was unfair, is as follows:</p>

<p><strong><em>“The attempted rape charge was dismissed along with all the others, but the broader sentiment was endorsed.”</em></strong></p>

<p>Is the above statement potentially defamatory?</p>

<p>None of us are legal experts but this may form part of a seminar for media students at some point.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>“The attempted rape charge was dismissed along with all the others, but the broader sentiment was endorsed.”</p>
  
  <p>Is the above statement potentially defamatory?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>No, or at least not in isolation. Although very unlikely, one might reach a different conclusion only if one is given additional context and/or additional contents of the article.</p>

<p>It appears that the focus of your question is the statement "<em>the broader sentiment was endorsed</em>". That statement does not appear to refer to the <em>acquitted individual</em> himself, but to the <em>people</em> or <em>community</em> who collectively hold(s) that "sentiment" (a sentiment which the statement does not even specify).</p>

<p>The statement is ambiguous also on whether "<em>the broader sentiment</em>" is about the accused for allegedly committing crime(s), or about the court for failing to serve justice. For a statement to be defamatory, it would have to [be false and] sufficiently identify --even if indirectly or by implication-- the entity to which the statement refers. The aforementioned ambiguity means that there was no identification, whence the fact-finder would need to assess whether a reasonable person will interpret that statement as <em>referring to</em> the accused/acquitted individual.</p>

<p>Furthermore, the fact that the incriminating evidence and/or individual's inappropriate behavior was acknowledged by his own counsel mostly bars that individual from arguing that the statement at issue defamed him. Counsel's acknowledgment largely renders the accused <em>defamation-proof</em>. This means that, given the circumstances, the statement in that article cannot possibly have added any harm to the individual's reputation.</p>
