Joe O'Toole (Independent)

While I do not wish to be awkward, I do not understand the point. I am trying to visualise a relevant situation. There is an important point with regard to the claim of reasonableness, which I thoroughly support. I believe it is a major move forward and I support what we are trying to achieve in subsection (4). However, I cannot understand how the "defence of fair and reasonable publication shall fail unless ... the defendant proves that ... he or she did not act in bad faith or out of spite". Can anyone explain how a person would do that? How does one prove one did not act out of spite, beyond saying it? A person would have already proved, under the previous subsection, that he or she believed the statement to be true, fair and reasonable. If somebody goes to the trouble of trying to prove that point, an additional burden seems to be added in order that, in addition, the person would also have to prove he or she did not act out of spite.

The two parts are contradictory. If one part proves it is fair and reasonable, this I can accept, but to have to prove at the same time that one did not act out of spite seems contradictory. Is it possible to prove one's actions were fair and reasonable but that one was also acting out of spite? This is not even a belt and braces approach. It is a case of belt and throw away the braces, and hold one's trousers up with one's hands.