Search

ABSTRACTStatements that interpret the words of others are – by their nature – interpretative. Their meaning is contingent and (inter)subjective; it is something that those who encounter those words or actions construct. As such, it makes little sense for the law to treat interpretative statements as purporting to set out provable facts. Yet English defamation law does precisely this. As a result, publicly criticising ambiguous words or actions that are put into the public domain by one person can cost a commentator dearly. This essay critiques the peculiarities of English defamation doctrine that have created this situation, arguing that all published statements that interpret or purport to interpret one or more earlier statements, whether expressly or impliedly, ought to be treated as statements of opinion. By adopting this approach, English defamation law can address an issue that has the potential to cause significant chilling effects on public discourse – particularly on social media.

ABSTRACTIn Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd, the Court of Appeal held that s 1 Defamation Act 2013 was intended to “raise the bar” for defamation claims above the standard previously demanded at common law. However, despite finding that this was Parliament’s intention in enacting s 1, the Court held that this intention had not been successfully implemented by the wording of the Act. The notion that libel is a tort that is actionable per seis one that has a lengthy heritage at common law. However, an examination of case law between 2005 and 2013 reveals that libel had ceased to be actionable per selong before the new s 1 appeared on the statute books. The Court of Appeal thus based its ruling on a misunderstanding of the pre-Act common law position, resulting in a failure to interpret the Act in a manner consistent with the Parliamentary intention that the Court identified, thereby frustrating that very intention.

The aim of this study was to investigate whether occupational and other suggested brain tumour risk factors relate to the development of acoustic neuromas (AN) in men. Responses to interviews were compared for 86 AN patients and 86 neighbourhood controls. During the period 10 or more years before the year of diagnosis of the case, more cases than controls had a job involving exposure to extremely loud noise; noise exposure was determined by a blinded review of job histories and linkage to the National Occupational Hazards Survey data base (odds ratio (OR) = 2.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.12, 4.67). A dose-response analysis showed an increase in risk related to number of years of job exposure to extremely loud noise (P for trend = 0.02) with an OR of 13.2 (CI = 2.01, 86.98) for exposure for 20 or more years during the period up to 10 years before diagnosis. We propose that the findings in this study which identify noise as a risk factor support the hypothesis that mechanical trauma may contribute to tumorigenesis.

This interview study included 136 Los Angeles County residents aged 20-69 with CML diagnosed from 1979 to 1985 (cases) and 136 neighbourhood controls. During the 3-20 years before diagnosis of the case, more cases than controls had radiographic examinations of the back, gastrointestinal (GI) tract and kidneys, and cases more often had GI and back radiography on multiple occasions (odds ratio (OR) for back X-rays on five or more occasions = 12.0; P less than 0.01). Published estimates were used to assign a minimum dose to the active bone marrow for various radiographic procedures. ORs were estimated for cumulative marrow doses for each of four time periods (3-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-20 years and 3-20 years before the diagnosis of the case). The ORs for exposure to 0.99, 100-999, 1000-1999 and greater than or equal to 2000 mrad in the 3-20 years before diagnosis were 1.0, 1.4, 1.6 and 2.4 (P for highest exposure category and P for trend both less than 0.05). The association was strongest for the period 6-10 years before diagnosis, and the effects of radiation exposure during this period remained significant after consideration of other risk factors in a logistic regression analysis.