Today's National Post has an article about government (usually municipal) funding for claims made by officials against citizens for defamation. The article points out that governments themselves (at least outside Quebec) cannot sue for defamation and suggests that funding say, the Mayor's claim, is a way of avoiding that restriction.
The article also suggests that the (relatively) limitless government funding creates a strong disincentive to criticising the local government -- a 'libel chill'.
There is no doubt anyone defamed is entitled to sue. The question is who should pay for that suit.
In corporate law, a business may reimburse a shareholder for legal fees for bringing an action if the action was brought for the benefit of the business 'as a whole'.
An employee should be given a legal defence if sued but should only be funded to make a claim if the claim is to benefit the employer. Since a government cannot sue (again outside Quebec) for defamation it is hard to see how a claim brought by a municipal employee can be for the benefit of the municipality.
What's this mean?
Except in the most extraordinary cases, municipal officers who want to sue for defamation should pay their own way, just like the rest of us.
4 comments:
"Except in the most extraordinary cases, municipal officers who want to sue for defamation should pay their own way, just like the rest of us."
As they should! James, what do you consider an "extraordinary case"?
Penlan,
I don't know but I wouldn't want to say never. But pretty close to that. It's james replying. For some reason I can't log on so am going anon
Thanks anon aka James. ;)
We live in Wales UK, and were sued for libel by the chief planning officer of the county council, (we are ordinary residents),we believe that council funded the case but this is denied. That aside, since the case, the council has changed it's constitution to fund officers making libel claims. The ethics of this are arguable but I make two points; the UK libel law circus is notoriously impossible to either defend or afford and secondly the potential is now there for the council to circumvent the 'government cannot sue' rule.
All of which adds up to the 'libel chill'. The UK government is currently looking at the issue of libel reform including 'cost capping' and balancing the 'burden of proof', which is currently entirely on the defendant. There is also a national campaign for reform.
Personally I believe that governments should steer clear of using the taxpayers money to silence the taxpayer
Post a Comment