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& #39;t be in the Bill. It is generally assumed that words in legislation serve a purpose. Therefore, the word "serious" must mean something. I& #39;m not an expert on English and Welsh law, but my understanding of the case

in respect of the 2013 Act (and I& #39;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& #39;s explanation (evidence session is still on going at

the time of writing this thread).