So here's what I wonder, not being a lawyer and all:
Doesn't the plaintiff in a civil action regarding defamation by slander have to prove that some sort of monetary 'injury' was sustained? Funny thing, Chief lost his job. Doug claimed the 'subpoena leak' was some sort of 'payback' for that occurrence. Will this complicate Doug's defence? Because...
As I understand it, of the
five possible defences (See #4 of 'Defences') Doug has, the only one possibly open to him is 'fair comment', and of that he can only satisfy one pillar, i.e., opinion. On which he has been leaning like a drunk on a lampost throughout his public utterances.
So, without an abject apology, will he get his ass handed to him? And, even with an apology that satisfies Blair's conditions, can Blair just say 'Fuck it. Take that smarmy asshole down'?