Wednesday 2 December 2009

Everything about Everything about our Law Exam

This is more or less just a recap of Tuesdays lesson. Thought however that it may worth posting as some people may not have been there or missed a couple of explanations.

The test itself is an hour long. 5 questions. 10 minutes for each question. Need only 40 % to pass.

Some key points to revise from McNaes -

Defamation, the: PCC, Ofcom and the BBC codes of conduct, Libel, the 10 point test, these are just a few important ones, these are one to try and go revise in quite a bit of detail as you could be asked about something specific.

The rest now are definitions of words that either could come up in the exam, or you may just need to know so that you can refer to it, when answering another question. For example if you had a question on Libel you may also want to refer to qualified privilege. Therefore a good understanding of all the definitions could be very useful. Even if they just give you an overview of what it means.

Libel - An article or broadcast that identifies someone, defames them and is published to a third person. (Publication, identification, defamation.) The only defence against libel is, qualified privilege.

3 defences for Libel-


  1. It is true and you can prove it.
  2. It is only comment, an honest opinion based on fact, without malice.
  3. Qualified privilege
Qualified Privilege - When a comment is made in active court, in front of a BRITISH judge. If you write an article about a point made in court you must write it fast, accurately and fairly.
Malice - Writing or broadcasting anything that you know is not true. If taken to court and sued for malice you are not allowed defend yourself. You will not be given a chance.

Public Interest - Exposing something for the public interest. However if you are broadcasting you need prior consent needed from Ofcom. A proper definition of public interest can be found in the PCC's code of conduct. We are the 4th estae, we have to watch the first 3.

Inuendo - Making an allegation with absoloutly no evidence. Implying that it is a fact is also a form of malice and if sued you will not be able to defend yourself.

Juxtaposition - In English terms it is putting two words next to each other that are opposites such as "bitter sweet" however in Journalism it means putting two stories next to each other, on the same page that could be linked. For example, putting Gordon Browns picture next to a headline, "Man murders party people". This could be construde as inuendo, that Gordon Brown was the man that murdered the party people. This could also allow for you being sued.

Defamation - A story or comment that lowers peoples reputation, with or without justification. True or not. One problem with defamation is that it is very broad and many things could be said to be defamatory. There is a 3 point list that make it defamatory -

  1. Could expose someone to ridicule, contempt or hatred.
  2. Cause them to be shunned and avoided. E.g. saying that someone has Aids.
  3. Demeaning in their profession.

Slander - This is defamation between 2 people speaking. This is very hard to prove as it is hard to get evidence. The person has to be identified but it doesn't have to be published.


Plaintiff - They have 1 year from the article/broadcast was published, to gather their evidence. this means that you have to keep all of your notes for at the very least of one year, if you do not have the notes and rushes it will look as if you are lying.

Subterfuge - This is when you are not honest. You have to declare: who you are, your job, who you work for and when the article/broadcast will be published. If you do not do this you are comitting subterfuge.

Your only defence of subterfuge is if you can not get the story any other way and you have tried, and that it is overwhelmingly in the case of public interest. If you are broadcasting you will need to tell Ofcom prior to comitting the subterfuge and get their permission.

I hope that you all find these notes useful for your revision cards. Remember the test is on the morning of 15th, the same day as our HCJ unseen class test. Also remember that Chris said if you fail miserably you can resit and commit one case of plagiarism, thus meaning you can copy someone with 100% and you'll get the same mark without it going against you, yay!

Good Luck

2 comments:

  1. Thank you!! Very helpful notes :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Very good notes - would get a top mark definately. Dominiques done good notes here - very much 'on the money' - except for malice... there's a misunderstanding about malice.You can't be sued for malice - but if you are shown to have malice you loose your defences for libel. Do you see he difference? Maybe you are mixing it up with malicious falsehod. You can prosecuted (not sued) for that - malicious falsehood is telling lies about somebody to cause them harm (these lies may or may not be defamatory) for example by saying they were in one place when they were really in another - not defamatory but possibly damaging. But we won't have an exam question about malicious falsehood.

    ReplyDelete