help. Xmas do... suspected of doing DRUGS!!!!!!

rupee99

bristol_pilot wrote: »

This sort of gem is absolute gold dust and the sort of valuable advice that can be given by a legal professional. The OP should seek professional legal representation this week, first thing on Monday. He will most likely have to pay for advice, but it will be money well spent.

rupee - do you know if there is any legal privilege in matters relating to disciplinary hearings, or are the sale's manager's orignial email and office girl's statements potentially actionable as libel? I'm not thinking the OP will proceed to trial, but could maybe get the statements withdrawn.

In this context full legal privilege only exists in legal proceedings i.e. statements made in court and preparatory thereto, although it might be hard to prove that any statements made in a disciplinary were not genuinely held beliefs even if they were not correct.

bristol_pilot

Is it not the case that a genuinely held belief is not a defence to defamation?

If someone had written about me to a third party that I was a user / supplier of Class A drugs they would have had a writ as fast as my hired gun could scribble.

u264047

Rupee, Poet, Bristolpilot, Pinhead, Zazen

Thank you for the last 20 or so posts, I have taken a hell of a lot out of these and made notes against all relevant parts on the statements that have been given to me.

Truly gold. I feel like I should be paying you guys for this advice.

Thank you. Matt

rupee99

bristol_pilot wrote: »

Is it not the case that a genuinely held belief is not a defence to defamation?

If someone had written about me to a third party that I was a user / supplier of Class A drugs they would have had a writ as fast as my hired gun could scribble.

In defamation there is a defence of "fair comment."

From what little information we have about the third party who made the statement, she had been told something, and on reflection thought her originally held view that the OP was joking about being able to supply her may have been wrong, after all she is expressing an opinion not a statement of fact.

As she is a relatively immature person in age and easily swayed, it would be custom made for the "fair comment" defence.

On the other hand she must have been told by someone that they believed him to be a drug dealer, if the identity of that person was known and it is untrue, then there is probably a case against that person with aggravating circumstances. It will not be possible to question the office junior at the disciplinary hearing but if the case comes to Tribunal it is something that can be asked on oath/affirmation. If the answer comes back that it was the sales manager then the employers case would simply fall apart, but, of course that is mere speculation.

bristol_pilot

My understanding on the basis of the little information we have on these boards is that defamatory statements of fact rather than opinion had been made. I also fail to understand how accusing a private individual of drug taking / supply could possibly be a matter of public interest / free speech to which the defence of 'fair comment' pertains.

robredz

bristol_pilot wrote: »

My understanding on the basis of the little information we have on these boards is that defamatory statements of fact rather than opinion had been made.

Surely then due to drink and prescription drugs and a cold being a valid reason for "sniffing sounds"

The equally inebriated manager who has set off the whole sorry mess may be guilty of misconduct?, and HR could now be trying to extricate themselves from this sorry mess and try to save face.

The inference seems to be that the sales manager has cajoled and badgered colleagues into making possible defamatory statements about the OP to HR, to cover his own a** which surely now is well exposed, for a mistaken belief that he tought he could use to his own advantage. And I consider these statements of fact to be possibly on balance to be defamatory. OP you have had some good advice here, use it to your advantage

rupee99

bristol_pilot wrote: »

My understanding on the basis of the little information we have on these boards is that defamatory statements of fact rather than opinion had been made. I also fail to understand how accusing a private individual of drug taking / supply could possibly be a matter of public interest / free speech to which the defence of 'fair comment' pertains.

Unfortunately we do not have the statements verbatim. I would imagine if they were properly prepared they would contain the "conditional" eg "I believed it to be," "it sounded like" etc. For it to be defamation the burden of proof would be turned around and the OP would have to establish that it was unreasonable for the person to hold that opinion, an almost impossible to prove and, apparently something the OP has already taken advice upon.

These are the very circumstances for the fair comment/freedom of speech defence. The person making it could claim that he believed that a serious breech of company policy was occurring/had occurred, possibly worse, and he was bringing it to the notice of the company to investigate. It is the same as someone reporting a suspected crime to the police.

poet123

Surely, if the person believed that to be the case, he also has a duty to make that known (to whoever the designated company person is) in a private/confidential manner, and not by way of office gossip, which would it seems to me negate his contention that he was doing it in the interests of the company.

rupee99

Apparently he did, on the night in question, to the most senior person from the company.

It would be undoubtedly argued that it only became public knowledge because of the conduct of the OP engaging in arguing with the sales manager.

Remember you cannot be defamed to yourself, it has to be to a third person, and once the information is in the public domain, especially if caused by the person claiming to have been defamed, it is pretty difficult to prove a case.

I am not saying these are things that actually happenned, but they would certainly be points I would raise in any defence.

poet123

I was really thinking about the person who told the office junior that the OP dealt drugs, which then made her think that really could be the case when he made a joking comment.