The  structure  of  the  wrong  of  defama2on  in  compara2ve  historical  perspec2ve:  England  and  France  Mathilde  Groppo  (mathilde.groppo@kcl.ac.uk)  

•  Compara8ve   law   involves   a   historical   element,  which  has  a  strong  explanatory  poten8al  and  can  account   for   the   differences   and   commonali8es  between  legal  ins8tu8ons  

•  A   historical   retrospec8ve   of   the   development   of  the   law   of   defama8on   in   England   and   France  highlights  3  prominent  features  in  their  structures  

How   can   these   structural   features   be  accounted  for?  Do  they   illustrate  a  conscious  choice  exemplary  of  a  fundamental  difference  between   the   two   jurisdic8ons;   are   they   the  by-­‐product   of   path   dependence;   or   could  they  simply  be  the  result  of  a  mistake?    

An   analysis   of   the   structures   of   the   wrongs   of  defama8on   in   England   and   France   highlights  considerable  differences  in  their  structures.  These  differences   notwithstanding,   an   historical  dimension   in   the   comparison   sets   forth   various  common  traits.        

The  concern  to  recognise  the  specificity  of  the  wrong  

Although  the  rules  do  not  fall  within  the  same  area  of  law,  the  wrong  of  defama8on  jus8fies  a  specific  framework  for  the  interests  it  protects  in  both  jurisdic8ons      •  Existence  of  similar  dynamics:  the  strive  towards  the  exclusion  of  the  broader  set  of  rules  

(tort  of  negligence;  art.  1382)  in  favour  of  the  more  refined  one  (tort  of  defama8on;  law  of  29  July  1881)  

•  Shared  casuis8c  approach:  allows  for  beVer  treatment  of  various  types  of  fault,  and  provides  remedies  appropriate  to  the  various  financial,  social  and  psychological  consequences  of  a  wrong  

Introductory  points   Research  ques2on   Main  argument  

Tor2ous  or  criminal  regula2on  

The  situa8on  is  exemplary  of  path  dependence:  different  solu8ons  are  found  to  a  similar  problem  because  each  system  is  locked  into  various  ‘set[s]  of  concepts,  procedures  and  ideas  from  the  past’    

England   France  

Feature  1:  the  libel/slander  dis2nc2on  

Feature  2:  the  nature  of  the  regula2on  

Feature  3:  the  posi2on  of  the  wrong  on  the  na2onal  legal  map  

 •  Contrary  to  French  law,  English  law  draws  a  dis8nc8on  between  libel  and  slander  based  on  the  permanent  or  transient  character  of  

the  statement    •  This  appears  to  be  a  product  of  a  historical  accident  stemming  from  dubious  premises      The  common  core  of  the  English  and  French  laws  of  defama2on  derived  from  their  shared  conceptual  basis,  Roman  law                    A  similar  incorrect  focus  on  means  of  commiGng  the  wrong      •  England:  problema8c  interpreta8on  of  King  v  Lake  statement  as  establishing  two  different  torts  rather  than  one  single  tort  with  aggrava8ng  

factors  •  France:  existence  of  some  incorrect  doctrinal  analysis  of  the  law  on  ‘the  Press’  as  a  reference  to  a  means  of  commi]ng  the  wrong  (namely  

through  the  media)  rather  than  as  a  medium  for  freedom  of  expression  and  of  opinion  

Roman  law   English  law   French  law  Protected  interests   •  Corpus  

•  Fama  •  Dignitas    

•  Physical  integrity  •  Reputa8on    

•  Personne/biens  •  Honneur  

Manner  of  commiGng  the  wrong   •  Re  •  Verbis  •  Li8eris  

•  Gestures  •  Words  –  oral    •  Words  –  wriVen    

•  Injures  réelles  •  Injures  verbales  •  Injures  par  écrit  

‘Overtly  poli8cal’  character  of  criminal  prosecu8ons  

Historical  developments  fostered  a  common  understanding  of  the  

criminal  offence  as  an  instrument  of  muzzling  of  the  

press      

Tor2ous  regula8on  

Parliamentary  discussions  of  law  of  29  June  1881  show  quick  dismissal  of  idea  to  regulate  

defama8on  under  general  rule  of  art.  1382  

Parliamentary  debate  focuses  on  whether  wrong  should  be  regulated  under  general  or  

special  criminal  law,  in  order  to  beVer  safeguard  freedom  of  

expression  

Criminal  regula8on  

France  England  

Tort  law  

Criminal  law  Criminal  law  

Civil  responsibility  (art.  1382)  

Tort  of  defama8on  

Law  of  29  July  1881  

The  influence  of  Roman  iniuria  in  the  analysis  of  the  libel/slander  dis2nc2on