Privileged – Simple really if you read

Can you remember back to the Select Committee hearing when Louise Mensch said something about what was written in Piers Morgans book?

Of course you can, everyone saw the argument engulf twitter and our TV’s, with Piers slamming into Louise and demanding she repeat it.  Louise Mensch could NOT be done for libel for the simple reason what she said was said at a Select Committee and therefore was classed as privileged.  She even told us that.

If however, Louise Mensch had repeated what she said at the hearing in public then she could have been liable for libel proceedings to be ordered against her.

Well the same privilege is expressed to people who give statements to Police.  They are exempt from libel proceedings and are classed as privileged.

Privileged means:
Any commission, tribunal, committee or person conducting an inquiry authorised by an Act of Parliament, by the Crown or by a minister of the Crown.


So you see it is simple really, the Gaspars can’t be brought before a Court for defamation and libel unless they repeat what they said to the Police on a forum, blog, newspaper comments section or by any other written means.  What they told the Police comes under Privileged… simple really isn’t it?

Oh just one more thing, those that repeat what the Gaspars stated can however be brought before a Court for defamation and libel.

So you see David Payne can issue Libel proceedings against anyone who repeats that statement and defames his character but he can’t bring proceedings against the Gaspars.  And Bennett should have known that, being a retired solicitor and all that.


6 comments on “Privileged – Simple really if you read

  1. Am laughing out loud here at the lack of knowledge of these so-called internet sleuths who really have not got a clue about anything.

  2. Oh I know, bystander, you can’t help but laugh.  And surely they have an ex-copper on that site who would have known the law and what was classed as Privileged. LOL

  3. The person who claims he’s an ex-copper very often shows his lack of knowledge of the law and police procedures.

    And Bennett? Surely his knowledge of the law can’t be good if there’s three libel suits against him. 😀 Or may be he doesn’t respect the law?

    • You know Cath, footballers take home the ball when they score a hat-trick perhaps Bennett thinks his hat-trick will result in him being awarded the Judges wig.

  4. Hiya Cath, I agree, oh yes I forgot about the ex-Supt well he would definitely know what was said in that statement would be classed as privileged.

    Cath there is only so long before something has to be done surely?  This can’t go on forever and a day, to discuss the case is one thing but to interfere with witnesses and  waste police time is another.

    David Payne has endured over 3 years of abuse since that statement was released, he has even been defamed by Goncalo Amaral’s wife in a statement she made.  This has got to stop, unfortunately sane people will see it for what it is,  malicious rumours and nothing more, but there are some people out there that are not mentally stable and they do hold grudges against possible paedophiles and therefore could harm the man.

    I can remember reading a case years ago where a place was fire-bombed because vigilantes suspected that the paedo lived there.  If my memory serves correctly it transpired that he had moved out and another family had moved in and they were the victims and were not even related to the other tenant.

    And of course this case


    where they mistook paediatrician for paedophile.

    and this case


  5. Well it seems someone on Amazon did not like this post.

    Big Bird wrote:

    An interesting observation. Some would do well to consider what is said here…


    And now you get his

    [Customers don’t think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway.]

    I bet they don’t especially when they know they could be standing next to Bennett any day soon. LOL

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: