MAR
'87 16:14 TIB(OOL) HK GOVT
able or the publication actually knew that the
a tu that regard are the most aankousy
o the area where the med for a oneok da frontonto
t
曲
The difficulty is a practical one.
very rarely be possible to prove what the defendant's state of
knowledge wa ir. Martds Lee, w25 10 honto
his proposal, says that the prosecution can rely on a confession by the defendant or on dircumstantial evidence to prove his story, for example if one newspaper published the story and no others did, it might be inferred that it had been published with knowledge of its falsity. În my view that is simply not the case.
P.10
As far es & confession goes, those responsible for the rubitoation will almost certainly have a good 10501 vi
schuld be purgand
and that advice will be to exercise the right of silence. Faced with that silanes, it is hard to woo what other line of housy t
I
ep rogase the suggestion that the defendant
L. is
amtel state can be inferred from such circumstantial evidence as what other papers or broadcastars may or may not have published, it has to be remembered that every part of the prosoautosae must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The mere fact that no other newspaper has published the news weuld fall for short of that. Becops om and do happen without there being any presumption that the story is false, still less that the newspaper producers knew it was false, therefore
'e
to subsequently shown that the story wea false, so interes
n be drawn that the publisher know it was false. Thezero20g 42 the
じゃ