I need help since no one seems to understand it and my mid term is very soon. The text book sucks and my prof is even worse so my notes are garbage.
In Defamation cases one of the defenses is ABsolute Privilage, its when its in the public intrest to have people speak freely on all matters. Only certain people can clame this such as parliament, before the courts and royal commissions and at a coroners inquest.
Now what i dont understand is why they are allowed to do this, why would you be allowed to ly in court in parliament and for a dead guy.
“In certain circumstances, persons in special positions may claim eather qualified or absolute privilege. Absolute privilge protects the person who made the statements absolutely, regardless of whether the statements were true or false, and even if the statements were made with the intention to injure. This defence, however, is limited to those places and situations where it is in the public interest to have people speak freely on all matters. As a result, absolute privilege may only be claimed with respect to statements made in parliament, before the courts and Royal Commmission, before quasi-judicial bodies, and at a coroner’s inquest”
Word for word.
It just dosnt make sence to me all the other defences make sence to me fine, but this one, no.
i think what it is saying is that in certain matters it is not illeagal to lie if it is for the greater good or is privlaged information ie. client- patient confidentiality… or in a case where national security may be at risk in some way or another… just my thoughts and what commen sence points me to
