Read on Twitter
In evidence to @SP_Justice the Minister for Community Safety has repeatedly made the point that she agrees with the principle that a pursuer in a defamation case should be required to show that they had, in fact, suffered harm as a defence of the serious harm test. This is makes
no sense; if the purpose is to require the Pursuer to provide evidence to the court that harm has occurred (rather than it being an inference that harm has occurred from a defamatory statement) then why use the word "serious"? Surely if the policy intention is just to require the
Pursuer to show harm the word "serious" is superfluous and shouldn't be in the Bill. It is generally assumed that words in legislation serve a purpose. Therefore, the word "serious" must mean something. I'm not an expert on English and Welsh law, but my understanding of the case
in respect of the 2013 Act (and I'm more than happy for my English and Welsh law followers to correct me on this) supports such a view (i.e. requires more than just harm). This would seem to be inconsistent with the Minister's explanation (evidence session is still on going at
the time of writing this thread).
