4

Truth is a defense to defamation Bob must prove the truth of his statement if Rob sues - there is a reverse onus for this defense. Because this is a civil trial the burden is balance of probabilities. Provided Bob can prove Rob stole his bike he will win. A conviction for doing so is pretty good (but not necessarily conclusive) evidence. Absent that, Bob ...


4

They have the same standard of proof but different onus The legal system places the onus of proving an allegation on the person making the allegation. For your example, this is A if they are suing B or the government prosecutor if B is being prosecuted. The standard of proof is “beyond reasonable doubt” if B is defending a criminal prosecution and “balance ...


3

The courts are never in such a broad position to rule on generic wikileaks evidence. Theoretically, a court could have to rule on the admissibility of a specific document, so in that sense the matter is always dealt with on a case by case basis. There is a "document" that purports to be somehow from Amazon, reporting that a certain grey building ...


3

Re: Any jurisdiction... In England and Wales, this falls within the Defamation Act 2013. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/contents The burden is on Rob to show - on the balance of probabilities - that Bob's statements on the billboards have caused "serious harm" to his reputation. s.1(1) A statement is not defamatory unless its ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible