Andrew Mitchell would have avoided the personally and financially devastating verdict in his High Court
libel action if he had shown a «scintilla of humility», his fellow Conservative MP Michael Fabricant has tweeted.
Not exact matches
Two reasons that I can see: he does not admit to committing
libel and
if the apology works, and Heartland accepts it without court
action and all that that entails (discovery, forensic analysis of his computer hard drives, email accounts, Pacific Institute equipment, etc., etc.), then the misdirection would be successful.
Lewandowsky falsely linked climate skeptics to moon landing hoaxism, and free marketeers to rejection of beliefs they overwhelmingly endorsed, so I guess an enterprising lawyer could think about a class
action civil suit for
libel (I'm not sure
if there's ever been a class
action libel action), against the researchers and the journal.
If a defendant is successful in having a
libel action dismissed on this basis, there is a presumption of costs being awarded on a full indemnity basis, the statute says.
Under D.C. law, government officials have absolute immunity in
actions for
libel and slander - even
if their statements are false and defamatory - provided that two conditions apply.
Even though the vast majority of
libel actions are brought through the civil courts, crown prosecutors can press charges for criminal
libel if it is thought to be in the public interest.