If I was her attorney I’d fight that tooth and nail. Medical records are irrelevant to a defamation suit; the operative question is what information Rowling had available when she said her statements. The content of medical records Rowling had no access to aren’t germane to that question.
I don’t know how French law works, but I American law to sue for defamation requires proving that the defendant knowingly said something false about you that caused damages.
Europe tends to have much stricter laws around defamation. In the US, to win, you generally have to prove that they knew what they said to be untrue especially if they said it about a public figure, and truth is an absolute defense. As far as I know, that is not generally the case in Europe. I believe you can be held liable for saying things you sincerely believed were true.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but as I understand it in the UK the burden is on the person who originally made the claim to prove that their claim was true.
Mostly—for the purposes of American law, “knowingly” includes reckless indifference for whether a statement is true or not true. In this instance though the distinction is irrelevent; whether Rowling said a false statement with actual knowledge it was false or with reckless indifference to whether it was false or not, the content of medical records for which she had no access are immaterial.
Medical records are entirely relevant to this specific defamation suit as they determine whether any defamation actually happened. The question is whether Rowling was telling what she reasonably believed to be true.
If I was her attorney I’d fight that tooth and nail. Medical records are irrelevant to a defamation suit; the operative question is what information Rowling had available when she said her statements. The content of medical records Rowling had no access to aren’t germane to that question.
I don’t know how French law works, but I American law to sue for defamation requires proving that the defendant knowingly said something false about you that caused damages.
Europe tends to have much stricter laws around defamation. In the US, to win, you generally have to prove that they knew what they said to be untrue especially if they said it about a public figure, and truth is an absolute defense. As far as I know, that is not generally the case in Europe. I believe you can be held liable for saying things you sincerely believed were true.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but as I understand it in the UK the burden is on the person who originally made the claim to prove that their claim was true.
Same applies for Australia.
Mostly—for the purposes of American law, “knowingly” includes reckless indifference for whether a statement is true or not true. In this instance though the distinction is irrelevent; whether Rowling said a false statement with actual knowledge it was false or with reckless indifference to whether it was false or not, the content of medical records for which she had no access are immaterial.
If the defamation involves medical history wouldn’t medical records be relevant?
Here I think it’s a stretch. Subpoena a birth certificate and be done with it. Or is a birth certificate considered a medical record?
And this is how the rich will drag it to emotionally and financially try destroy her
Medical records are entirely relevant to this specific defamation suit as they determine whether any defamation actually happened. The question is whether Rowling was telling what she reasonably believed to be true.