The following morning Carlisle released a statement apologising for his behaviour, in what was interpreted as an admission of drug use.
Legit legal question for the Q.C.s out there: How is this statement not defamatory?
Seriously? That seems an entirely appropriate sentence to me. Many wouldn't have had the "interpreted as" bit.
It’s a sensible and logical enough sentence. But I don’t see how it isn’t defamatory.
Jake omitted in his statement to profess that he did not inhale, but that’s not an admission. As soon as you say “many have interpreted” then you are getting into weasel words. Who has interpreted? And if you publish one of these supposed interpretations, then that would be getting ever closer to defamation.
My question is a legal question, not a common sense having a private conversation with your mate question.
How can it possibly be defamatory?
He was filmed snorting coke. And he didn’t & hasn’t denied it.
Ah… no he wasn’t. He was filmed snorting a white powder. Could have been anything.
WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?!?!?!?
And HAP as for “he hasn’t denied it” - that is completely irrelevant. In other news, Jake Carlisle hasn’t denied setting a dwarf on fire.
He is clearly guilty HAP because HE HASN’T DENIED IT.
We have laws and a legal system for a reason.
In your scenario he’s going to pursue someone for saying something that looks like a duck, looks like a duck - without denying it’s a duck?
Can’t you see that that doesn’t make sense?
You either deny it, in which case you can sue for defamation - or you don’t.
Defamation is only defamation if it’s not true…
Yeah that’s where I’m getting at. But being a bush lawyer, I wouldn’t mind a whole run down of the ins and outs from someone who has some expertise.
BTW I think it has to be more than true to hold up in court. I seem to recall from somewhere that it also has to be ‘in the public interest’ which is probably defined in case law.
I agree that it is unlikely for him to sue. Very unlikely. Mainly because the expectation from his new club is that he puts his head down and plays good footy and isn’t heard from otherwise. Much like many people were against JH taking legal action - they wanted him to just get on with coaching.
But if he did sue, then I think that in court he would have to testify that in that video he was not snorting cocaine for a defamation case to hold up. But there is no requirement for him to say that in a media statement. Just as there is no requirement for him to say that he did set fire to a dwarf in a media statement.
I think that’s more when someone digs up and spreads a personal, private detail - ie who’s tapping who.
This is, obviously, already in the public eye, ever since it ran on prime time TV - the cat is out of the bag.
But if he did sue, then I think that in court he would have to testify that in that video he was not snorting cocaine for a defamation case to hold up. But there is no requirement for him to say that in a media statement. Just as there is no requirement for him to say that he did set fire to a dwarf in a media statement.
He would. And if he was lying he'd be perjuring himself, very serious.
I’m just saying if it was flour or wizz fizz (even without your ‘requirements’ - what requirement??) it’d be easy enough to say in a media statement, and then you could shake around cease-and-desists to anyone saying it was coke.
As far as I know the Australian law is that it has to be substantially true. ie if I say you’ve got 10 illegal thingummies, and you’ve actually got 9 illegal thingummies, I don’t reckon that case would get up. Let alone if I say you’ve got ‘what appears to be 10 illegal thingummies’…
You’re still stretching & trying to make up scenarios here where it’s not. Easiest, most logical situation that fits all the facts is…