"peterwn" wrote in message


And there's always the possibility the radio station defends the action
by
bringing in a whole host of people to say they have seen the lad smoking
dope, but agreeing he had not actually been arrested for it. Damage to
the
Prime Minister almost as bad as the original libel/slander.

But this does not get round the 'sting' of the defamation - whether or
not he was smoking pot had nothing to do with it. The defendant would
have had to state a defence that the statement was true to avoid
summary judgement.


Well, there's clearly room for a pyrrhic victory here. The defamation was
that the son had been busted for drugs. If the radio station proved he had
been taking drugs but had not been busted, then maybe Daddy's influence had
been unfairly used ....

It was a high risk strategy, but he got away with it.

Low risk in this case - it was settled out of court.

It worked out well, but can you really risk starting these sorts of
proceedings on the basis that you have no intention of going to court and
will give up if the other side show any fight?

In any case the
broadcaster had no stomach to defend an indefensible defamation nor to
support an employee who had lied on air.

I wonder what persuaded the employee to say what he did? It might have been
purely malicious, or maybe there was something there but he could not quite
pin it down?