In looking at some of the defences applied against a defamation suit, we note that there

are those that would revolve around the elements of the tort itself and those on general legal
principles. The following are some of the defences for a defamation suit.
Justification of the Statement. With this regard, the defendant has to prove beyond any
reasonable doubt that the published information is indeed factual beyond any reasonable doubt.
The burden of proof placed on the defendant has to be well presented as in the event that the
court concludes that the plea of truth was unfounded, then the resulting consequences might be
more severe. This kind of an exacting defence has to be well used as one should appreciate the
fact that the plaintiff would not have made such a defamation suit where they knew that the
defendant had indeed published correct information.
Fair comment. This particular defence relies on the deals of freedom of expression
especially where comments are made for the interest of the public. As such, this defence if based
on certain conditions. First, the court must consider the words as to being comments that would
in turn cover inference, observation or a statement of conclusion all of which must have been
based on the context of a critique, commentary or evaluation. Moreover, the comment must be
based on actual facts without which the plaintiff can assert the comments were based on malice.
The Supreme Court of Canada in WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson (2008) recognized that with this
line of defence, any individual can express proven facts (Berg, 2014).
Absolute privilege. This can be regarded as a complete defence where malice is not
applicable. It is usually applicable in four broad spectrums: comments made in legislative
organs, statements made during judicial proceedings by officers of the court, or high-ranking
executive officers. It is important to take note of the fact that the comments for the judicial and
executive conditions, they must be made in relation to the scope of their mandate an in the course
of official proceedings. An exemption to this rule for the legislative member can be seen in the
Tenney v. Brand (1951) where such comments were entirely irrelevant to the proceedings. The
protection of judicial officers and executive from suits based on this grounds have been tested in
the cases of Irwin v. Ashurst (1938) and Kilgore v. Younger (1982) respectively. This defense on
absolute privilege allows spouses to make defamatory statements on a third person to their
spouse (Berg, 2014).
Qualified privilege. The basis of this defense is where the defendant has a legal, social or
moral authority to submit a communiqu on the plaintiff to a recipient who has a justifiable
reason to receive the communiqu. The Pullan v. Hill Ltd. (1981) case provided succinct grounds
for the admissibility of this defense. It is important to take note of the fact that the communiqu
should not be made with vindictiveness or a desire to cause humiliation to the defendant. A
classic example can be taken to be in the workplace where a team leader submits an employee
profile to the human resource department. It is important to note that in the event of transmission
of privileged information and parties that had no business in receiving the data, then the
defendant can be liable for damages for the information being given to non privileged parties.
Retraction of a Defamatory Statement. In cases where the defamer moves to retract a
statement and also and a genuine and sincere apology to the affected party, then one can use it as
a defence during a defamation suit. Moreover, the defendant should provide notice to all the
persons who received the defamatory statement. In some other cases, the defendant can try to
make amends with the plaintiff and where it fails, they can use it as part of their defence.
Defence based of Elements of Defamation. Looking at some of the elements of
defamation, one can use any of them as a potential source of defence. For example, if the
defendant did not make any publication, then they can put across such fact and leave it upon the
plaintiff to prove otherwise. If the defendant can prove to court that indeed no damage was done,
then so be it. It would be upon the plaintiff to show the extent of the damage done. In some other
cases, the defendant can make every effort to prove that the publication made was in no way
defamatory in which case it would be a case based on cultural perceptions.
Bibliography
Berg, D. (2014). Privileges and Defenses in Defamation Cases. Retrieved June 3, 2014,
from NOLO Law for All: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/privileges-defenses-
defamation-cases.html
Lawrence, F. (2007). Truth or Fiction, Sticks and Stones The Law of Defamation,in
GUARDING LIFES DARK SECRETS: LEGAL AND SOCIAL CONTROLS OVER
REPUTATION, PROPRIETY AND PRIVACY. California: Stanford University Press.
NPC. (2014). Defenses to Defamation Charges. Retrieved June 3, 2014, from National
Paralegal College:
http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_documents/courseware_asp_files/torts2/Defamation/Defenses
ToDefamation.asp