Silk
So? You're wrong, there is no legal concept of the "weight" of the defamation when it comes to apportioning blame. Weight, where it applies, is considered when damages are awarded. Had the judge considered that a libel had occured but the libel had no real substance then he could have awarded derisory damages. It has been common to award damages of 1p or £1 without costs if the case has been held to be technically correct but otherwise without merit.
If that is what he is arguing then he needs to go back to college. I'm struggling with this concept of a "resident" lawyer, what do you mean by it?
So you say. You're largely wrong or at least wrong to the extent that there is no such offence as criminal libel and that to raise a civil case requires large balls, and huge reserves of cash. There's also possibly a case to be made for more rapid justice in cases as open and shut as this one.
If that is what had happened, the damages would have been commensurate. The woman in question did no such thing, she mounted a sustained campaign of vilification and refused to retract her libel.
Had she wanted to avoid paying damages, she could have avoided payment by apologising when asked to do so.
