Journalist's confusion between suspect and defendant may be defamation

The Supreme Court tightens its grip ondefamation. Resolving a clash between civil and criminal sections, the United Civil Sections, sentence 13200 filed yesterday, affirmed that the exemption of right-of-judicial-reporting, when the news is borrowed from a judicial measure, is not configurable if one attributes to a subject, directly or indirectly, the false position of defendant, instead of indicted.

Where the United Sections refer to a request for pre-trial proceedings, instead of the actual circumstance of the service of the notice of conclusion of preliminary investigations, but also to a fact that is different in its essential structure from the one under investigation, capable of causing a injury to reputation (as also in the case of an offence committed instead of an attempted offence), unless the court of the merits ascertains that the context of the publication is such as to convert, in a clear and unequivocal manner, the meaning of those otherwise defamatory charges.

The judgement thus dwells on the requirement of truth, to be identified, in relation to the right to report news in general, in a compromise sense, of mediation between the need for flexibility, to protect the journalist's activity, and a greater rigour, inspired by the protection of personality rights with which that activity may interfere in a very significant manner.

From the first point of view, truth need not be expressed in absolute terms, as a necessary correspondence between the news narrated and the fact that occurred in historical reality; rather, what the United Sections define as putative truth is sufficient to integrate the requirement. However, in order to deem legitimate the dissemination of news alleged to be true, a mere verisimilitude between the narration and the event is not sufficient. "In fact, the journalist is required to prove a qualified verisimilitude, in relation to the observance of a standard of conduct marked by diligence and professionalism, in such a way as not to derecognise his activity". Then the journalist's error in checking information sources can only exempt him from liability if it is blameless.

Particularly sensitive is the case then of the judicial chronicle, with which 'the formation of public opinion is stimulated not only on the law as enacted, but also on how it is applied, allowing the community an active, informed and conscious participation in the overall democratic process'.