Find
Quick links
Cases
Gillick v Brook Advisory Centres & Another
Comment
The capacity of "moral responsibility" to convey a defamatory meaning also arose in Mrs Gillick's earlier case against the BBC [1996] EMLR 267. In that case, Millett LJ (dissenting) suggested that "moral responsibility" could not be defamatory as it suggested that the person was not really responsible. In order to be defamatory the words had to convey a sense of being "morally responsible to a culpable degree." However, the Court of Appeal again refused to accept that the simple "morally responsible" meaning could be ruled out as not defamatory at the capacity stage. It is to be noted that Gray J held - in later summary disposal proceedings in the same case - that the words were not, in fact, defamatory of the Claimant (unreported, 12 March 2002). The Claimant appealed that decision and the action settled before the appeal.