‘The Streisand effect’ is now known, according to Wikipedia, as ‘an unintended consequence of attempts to hide, remove or censor information, where the effort instead increases public awareness of the information’. In South Africa we should call it The Spear effect after Brett Murray’s controversial work of art. Continue reading
Six months after the hearing of Steinhoff’s appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) last week handed down its ruling compelling Steinhoff’s successor companies to hand over a forensic report Steinhoff commissioned into South Africa’s biggest corporate scandal.
On 16 October 2017, Daphne Galizia, Malta’s top investigative journalist, was assassinated when a car bomb planted under her seat exploded. Her work focused on corruption and organised crime, and she was facing more than 40 civil defamation lawsuits and five criminal defamation cases at the time of her death. Most of these were brought by Maltese government officials and businessmen.
In the past year or so, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) handed down judgment in two defamation appeals that have an impact on how plaintiffs obtain remedies to vindicate their reputation. Both of these cases were appeals from defamation cases brought through the procedure of an application or motion (where evidence is given through affidavits) as opposed to the procedure of a trial (where evidence is given through oral evidence). 






