Can the police slander someone?

S

sluice44

Registered User
Messages
112
On the news this evening, a gentleman was cleared of murder. The jury declared the man innocent/not guilty but, afterwards, a senior policeman was quoted that, basically, the police were not actively investigating the case further. I've heard several policeman react in a similar vein several times in the past few years in Ireland and the UK after their suspect was declared not guilty in a court of law.

In general, and without referring to any individual cases, are the police exempt from the slander/libel laws? If a court declares someone 'not guilty'/innocent, can that individual take exception to a State official implying otherwise?
 
That's a very interesting question. In the US, afaik, police officers are immune from prosecution if 'on duty' at the time... a grey area, if ever there was one! :eek:
 
sluice44 said:
On the news this evening, a gentleman was cleared of murder. The jury declared the man innocent/not guilty but, afterwards, a senior policeman was quoted that, basically, the police were not actively investigating the case further.
Click to expand...
How is that slander?
 
I heard these comments live, and took them to reasonably state that the book was closed on the issue. Slander where?
 
sluice44 said:
On the news this evening, a gentleman was cleared of murder. The jury declared the man innocent/not guilty but, afterwards, a senior policeman was quoted that, basically, the police were not actively investigating the case further. I've heard several policeman react in a similar vein several times in the past few years in Ireland and the UK after their suspect was declared not guilty in a court of law.
Click to expand...
I presume this was in the UK? Can't find a link to the story on BBC.
 
runner said:
I heard these comments live, and took them to reasonably state that the book was closed on the issue. Slander where?
Click to expand...

I suppose you could read into it and presume that they mean they reckon they had their man but nothing they could do anymore.

Long way from slander though...
 
ClubMan said:
[broken link removed]
Click to expand...
Ah calling them Police confused me!

That doesn't sound like Slander to me at all. Sure it was obvious the guards thought he was guilty already or else they wouldn't have built the case, all the guard said was basically that nothing had changed.
 
No, it was in Ireland - a case I've been following for some time and a very surprising outcome! We obviously didn't hear all the evidence the jury heard, still the verdict was a shock.

I think the Guards are within their rights to comment on the progress of a case by saying that 'they are not looking for anyone else in connection with the murder". This could mean that they think he's guilty, but can get a conviction or that they have no other leads.

Either way, someone got away with murder - just like the other case in the Naul which hasn't yet been resolved.

Here's the details of today's verdict.

(Post crossed with Clubman's)
 
Hi Clubman,
I don't want to focus on any particular case.

Murder does not have a statute of limitations (i.e., the case will stay open until it's solved). And the police have an obligation to persue these cases.

In general, a court of law says a man is innocent but, sometimes, in the aftermath, the police say there is no point persuing the case because there are no other suspects. If I was an individual in a similar case, I would feel aggrieved that a State official suggested the investigation was over, irrespective of what a court of law said. If I'm innocent, then surely the investigation should be re-opened or, at least, the police should 'keep an open mind'.
 
sluice44 said:
Hi Clubman,
I don't want to focus on any particular case.
Click to expand...
So why did you post these details?
On the news this evening, a gentleman was cleared of murder. The jury declared the man innocent/not guilty but, afterwards, a senior policeman was quoted that, basically, the police were not actively investigating the case further
Click to expand...
If I was an individual in a similar case, I would feel aggrieved that a State official suggested the investigation was over, irrespective of what a court of law said. If I'm innocent, then surely the investigation should be re-opened or, at least, the police should 'keep an open mind'.
Click to expand...
You might feel aggrieved but I still can't see how this could ever be considered slander.
 
Didn't realise so many people would reply so quickly!

Slander: Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation. from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=slander

In general, I'm arguing that a court found a man not guilty of a crime. If a policeman says they are not looking for anyone else...2+2=? It's not like it's a burglary or a 'minor' crime, it's murder where the investigation doesn't stop until they find the culprit.
 
-- I don't want to focus on any particular case --

I wanted to give some background to my thoughts? Because, imo, jumping right in with 'can the police slander the public' would have people wondering 'heh'??
 
Is there anything you'd like to tell us, sluice44...?
Click to expand...

Err... I'm listening to Pink Floyd's The Piper at the Gates of Dawn in memory of Syd Barrett's death?

Seriously though, someone posted on AAM today about Gardai smoking in police vehicles. I watched the news today where a senior Garda made comments that, imo, contradicted what the court said. Sometimes 2+2=5 and it makes for interesting commentary?
 
delgirl wrote:
I think the Guards are within their rights to comment on the progress of a case by saying that 'they are not looking for anyone else in connection with the murder". This could mean that they think he's guilty, but can get a conviction or that they have no other leads.

Either way, someone got away with murder - just like the other case in the Naul which hasn't yet been resolved.
Click to expand...
Don't know about 'Naul', but with respect, I disagree. The Gardai are agents of the State and have very special powers (they can deprive you of your liberty etc). Most people have a relative who's a Garda but they forget their relative is 'the State' once the uniform is on.

Their words carry extra weight (because they're the State) and sometimes, in terrorist cases, their word is enough to send someone to prison.

In general, my concern is that a court of law found a man innocent and a servant of the State disagreed publicly with the court. If a public servant was so sure of himself, he should be able to prove it publicly in a court of law?
 
sluice44 said:
...a court of law found a man innocent and a servant of the State disagreed publicly with the court.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that that necessarily follows, as per ClubMan's post above. People might infer whatever they like from such a statement, but it doesn't look like slander, at least to my (untrained) eye...
 
I'm untrained myself, as you've probably guessed by now!

P.S. I've switched to Pink Floyd's Ummaguma as it's a better album.

If joe public implied that a man was guilty of a crime after he was declared [broken link removed], then nobody would pay attention. But, in general, when 'the State' (i.e. a policeman) says something like 'we got the right man but...'.

Can that individual argue that it is "Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation"
 
Careful with that axe now, sluice44...! :D

I think the crux of the matter is that the Gárda's (guarded) statement doesn't imply anything; it's purely a matter of what you or I might infer...

Qualified legal opinion, anyone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top