I have to confess, I have a particular interest in defamation of the deceased, or to be more precise defamation of homicide victims in criminal memoirs. I also have grave concerns about campaigning journalist who abuse their position of power to disseminate false or grossly misleading information about the deceased to make their point about a particular issue which is of interest to them. Please bear in mind such journalist can and do abuse their position of power over their readers with impunity for they know only too well families of the deceased have no legal standing under defamation legislation. For further information please look-up the House of Commons, 2003 Culture, Media and Sports Committee report on unwarranted intrusion into privacy, Mr and Mrs Watson’s submission.

If you should lookup this report you will get a rough insight into harrowing effect false information published as fact about innocent homicide victims has on the surviving family members of the deceased victim. You can also look-up Petition 504 (Stop Convicted Murders Profiting from Selling Their Crimes for Publication), which can be found on the Scottish Parliament Website, under Public Petitions. The aim of our petition to twofold, (I) – to stop convicted murderers profiting from selling their account of their crimes for publication – (2) – to amend the United Kingdom defamation legislation to allow families of homicide victims to take civil action on behalf of homicide victims.

If you look-up Canada’s defamation legislation, which is the one we favour, you will note families of the deceased get 5 years in which to start civil proceedings as the Canadian legislators have taken into account that families of the deceased are often far too traumatised at the loss of a much loved member of their family at the hands of a violent offender to think clearly about taking any kind of legal action, let along one for defamation of the deceased and families of the deceased need an extension to the normal time limit as they too ill to think clearly. You will also note that Canadian defamation legislation, which as you have stated in your brilliant article, is not used very often and does not allow the families of the deceased to sue for financial gain, Canada have recognised that families of the deceased simply want to stop false information being published as fact about the deceased and to get a public apology in the same publication that unjustly called into question the good name and reputation of the deceased homicide victim in the first instance and an undertaking by that publication that any future reference too the deceased in question, will be based on fact not innuendoes or in some instances, outright lies.

I would like to state very clearly, we as a family full endorse Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights “freedom of speech” but it has to be said that (the United Kingdom Government by its omission to amend the United Kingdom defamation legislation)and irresponsible publishers clear do not respect (section 2) of Article 10 of the Convention of Human Right, which clear stats – “The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

Families of the deceased must be given the same basic human rights as everyone else under defamation legislation and all governments must stop and take stalk of how they, by their acts of omission, are in fact adding to the pain and distress of families of homicide victims who are being forced to endure at the hands of the convicted murderer, irresponsible journalist and publishers.

I often wonder how quickly defamation laws would be amended if political leaders had to endure the lost of much loved and deeply missed member of their family at the hands of a violent offender and then that offender went on to profit by selling their basis and distorted account of their crime for publication and then they as the family of the deceased, are then denied leave under the very (defamation legislation they helped formulate) to present evidence which would prove that the violent offender’s account of their crime is in fact false?

Further evidence can be supplied on request.

Margaret Watson.