If Ann calls Bob a cheat and a liar she has the defences of:
1: truth
2: fair comment (eg, Bob isn't a cheat or a liar but has behaved in a way that would make a reasonable person to think he is)
3: protection (eg Ann could have said it in the House of Commons and is thus immune from prosecution).
To get damages Bob (if he's a public figure) has to show that Ann was malicious -- that Ann knew the comments to be untrue or she recklessly disregarded the truth; if Bob is a private individual he only needs to show Ann was negligent in obtaining the truth. (That's compensatory damages. For punitive damages malice has to be present.)
Comments
English defamation law recently (2013) changed.
If Ann calls Bob a cheat and a liar she has the defences of:
1: truth
2: fair comment (eg, Bob isn't a cheat or a liar but has behaved in a way that would make a reasonable person to think he is)
3: protection (eg Ann could have said it in the House of Commons and is thus immune from prosecution).
To get damages Bob (if he's a public figure) has to show that Ann was malicious -- that Ann knew the comments to be untrue or she recklessly disregarded the truth; if Bob is a private individual he only needs to show Ann was negligent in obtaining the truth. (That's compensatory damages. For punitive damages malice has to be present.)