Bryan,
I am unable to find the specific information you require. This article
on the UK libel laws does not refer to the inability to sue for libel
having received a criminal conviction, but does set out the basic
tests the jury must consider. The first one is: Does the matter
complained of tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of
society?
It would seem from this, that a person who sues for libel over, let us
say, a motoring offence, and having previously been convicted of a
completely different and more serious criminal offence, then the jury
may consider that their character was not affected.
http://www.writersworld.tv/newsletter/2002-04-16.htm
This guide to the libel laws uses this example:
"For example, if you said Peter Sutcliffe had never paid his TV
licence in his life that would not be defamatory - or it is very
unlikely to be. However, if you said the same about TV boss Greg Dyke,
that would be.
Why? Because Peter Sutcliffe's reputation will not be damaged by the
TV licence revelation (he is after all a mass murderer). Of course,
his lawyers would still be free to bring the case to court, but it is
very unlikely they would succeed.
Greg Dyke, on the other hand, runs the BBC, so to say he wilfully
doesn't pay his TV licence could have a seriously detrimental effect
on his career. He could be fired or his reputation damaged."
http://www.urban75.com/Action/libel.html
Perhaps another research will be able to provide you with a detailed
answer from legal sources.
Best wishes
answerfinder-ga |
