Click HERE to Call Free for immediate help! 0800 612 7211
Every situation is different so by far the best way to find out how to respond to a social media legal issue is to speak to those who are most likely to have dealt with a situation similar to yours.
To find out how you can improve your reputation on the internet simply select one of the easy methods of contacting us.

We will respond as soon as possible.

FREEPHONE 0800 612 7211
(+) 44 207 183 4 123 from outside the UK.

TheInternet LawCentre
Suing police for defamation
If you have been a victim of defamation by the police, before taking legal action against the relevant police force, you will need to consider the following important point:
In the UK, there is a defence for action for defamation which is called “Absolute privilege”.
Absolute privilege is effectively a public policy defence which is designed to protect defamatory allegations made in certain situations, for example, statements made in court during or as part of legal proceedings; fair and accurate contemporaneous reports of such proceedings by the press and statements made, and documents created, in the course of a police criminal investigation.
However, not every document or statement which is created during a police criminal investigation is also protected by the defence of absolute privilege.
A classic example of a case where the defence did not apply was the recent case of Selvaratnam Suresh, who sued the Met Police for defamation.
Mr Suresh, who was represented by Cohen Davis Solicitors on a no win no fee basis, sued the police for defamation in relation to an email which was sent by one if its police officers.
The police initially claimed that the email was protected by the defence of absolute privilege, which provides for immunity from a defamation suit in respect of a statement which can fairly be said to be part of the process of investigating a crime.
However, whilst the defence of absolute privilege protects statements which can fairly be said to be part of the process of investigating a crime or possible crime, the email sent by the police officer to members of the public and to public officials was no such statement.
The email made inaccurate statements about the evidence against Mr Suresh, and wrongly advocated for steps to be taken against him by the Charity Commission, such as his removal from his position as a trustee. The mere fact that the police officer made reference to his investigation does not mean that the email formed part of the process.
|
Follow on Twitter
Norwich Pharmacal Order
Latest Articles
Porn law
Reputation management
- Business defamation on Google
- Defamation by investors on social media
- Disgruntled employees and company reputation
- Handling online reputation attack globally
- International reputation management
- Online reputation attack legal advice
- Online reputation strategies
- Reputation crisis management
- SEO and online reputation management
- The case of the removal of a cloned Facebook account
Category of work
|
Privacy law
- Footballer blackmail legal advice
- How to remove criminal record from Google
- Injunction for breach of privacy
- Is catfishing illegal
- Is it illegal to post private messages on Facebook
- Is it legal to film someone and upload it to YouTube
- Removal of defamatory video from the internet
- The case of DDF v YYZ
- The case of GYH v Persons Unknown
Right to be forgotten
- A case of a successful ICO right to be forgotten appeal
- Google right to be forgotten
- Help with a right to be forgotten
- Removal of google searches worldwide
- Remove court records from Google
- Removing search results under a right to be forgotten
- Right to be forgotten ICO appeal
- Right to be forgotten post Brexit
- Right to be forgotten refused
- The case of the removal of a professional disciplinary hearing from Google
- The case of the removal of newspaper reports about a court case
Online harassment
- The case of Frankie Rzucek
- The case of Kirat Assi v Simran Kaur Bhogal - Sweet Bobby
- The case of Lindsey Goldrick-Dean
- The case of Phipps v Britton-unmasking internet trolls
- Teenage harassment on social media
- Online harassment legal advice
- Cross jurisdiction case of harassment
- Harassment injunctions
- Harassment on Tattle.life
- The case of Rada-Ortiz v Espinosa-Vadillo
- Instagram harassment
- Harassment solicitors no win no fee
- Harassment and defamation on the internet
- Online trolling legal help
- Harassment limitation
- Blackmailer trying to ruin my marriage
- Harassment on social media
- Legal advice for online harassment
- How can we put an end to internet trolling
- Is harassment a crime
- Understanding online blackmail
- UK blackmail lawyer
- The case of XLD v KZL
- Civil harassment and criminal harassment in the UK what is the difference
Our work featured on |
---|
Online defamation
- Cancel culture defamation
- Defamation by competitors case
- Defamation and social media law in the UK
- Defamation by an Ex-Employee
- Defamation by employees
- Defamation cease and desist letter
- Defamation claim against the police
- Defamation injunctions
- Defamation on Blogger
- Defamation on Twitter case
- Defamation on websites
- Defamation removal letter
- Defamation solicitors
- Defamation with SEO
- False accusation of rape on social media
- Falsely accused of rape
- Google business defamation
- Injunction against Google
- Internet defamation lawyers
- Legal action for defamation
- Legal action for libel
- Online Defamation on YouTube
- Remove defamation from Google
- Removing defamation from the internet
- The case of RRR PLC v Gary Carp
- Twitter defamation and harassment