The truth can never be defamatory. The High Court powerfully made that point in the case of a young woman who was sued for libel by a tattoo artist whom she accused of subjecting her to a violent sexual assault as he walked her home from a nightclub.
The man asserted that she had deliberately fabricated her account of the incident and that her publication of the allegation on Facebook and elsewhere, including to his girlfriend and business partner, had caused him enormous embarrassment and damage to his reputation. He pointed out that she had not gone public with her claims until 10 years after the alleged incident.
After reviewing the evidence during a five-day hearing, however, the Court found that she had given an honest account of what had happened. Her actions and reactions at the time appeared consistent with an entirely genuine belief that she had been violently sexually assaulted. No reason had been put forward as to why she would have gone to such elaborate lengths to initiate and propound a false complaint.
She remained deeply upset about the incident in subsequent years and increasingly felt guilty that, in not speaking out, she may have failed to protect other women. She knew that the man routinely came into contact with women through his work and had become aware that the issue of sexual abuse in the tattoo industry had come to prominence.
Applying the civil standard of proof – the balance of probabilities – the Court found that her allegation that he violently sexually assaulted her was substantially true. Her published statements to that effect were on a matter of public interest and she reasonably believed that to be the case. His claim was dismissed.