The same court extended the privilege to an action for conspiracy to defame, and applied the privilege to statements made in court, to benchers of an inn of court at disciplinary proceedings, and indeed to statements made by police officers to the Director of Public Prosecutions in the course of an investigation. The action was brought in tort for conspiracy to defame, in the case of Marrinan v. Vibart, [1963] 1 Q.B. 528. Sellers L.J. stated at p. 535: It has been sought in this case to draw a difference between the action of libel and slander, the action of defamation, and that which is set up in this case, one of conspiracy. I can see no difference in the principles of the matter at all. Whatever form of action is sought to be derived from what was said or done in the course of judicial proceedings must suffer the same fate of being barred by the rule which protects witnesses in their evidence before the court and in the preparation of the evidence which is to be so given.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.