To think this may be slander?

[youarenotkiddingme]

I'll try and keep this brief - I've posted about the original incident before.

Ds attended a school that wasn't working and they were awful to me. My parents are teachers as said they had a bad culture and ethos and I couldn't change that so I did my best to manage it for Ds at the time.

Sequence of events occured.
*rung to say a pupil had pulled a knife from their pocket during an alto cation with Ds
*wrote on his student page theyd called for that reason.
*ds made a statement identical to schools to police.
*ds had a MH crisis over it and became school phobic
*school refused to meet with me about incident
*school changed story
*ds changed school and school

Now this has been going through internal complaints procedure and is seperate to the main issues Ds has been suffering.

Ds has ASD and was already struggling with school, under Camhs due to his anxiety and this was a climax rather than a catalyst for his total phobia.

Yesterday during a tribunal around Ds Sen, not related to school or incident, the senco of the school openly stated that Ds refused to attend after he made an untrue statement that a pupil pinned him up against a wall and pulled a knife on him.
Now Ds had never made such a statement.

This statement was made to and in front of judge, panal expert, la officer and Ds current school senco as well as me and the school staff.

I'm still going through the complaints procedure and am aware my frustration and admitted anger towards school can cloud my judgement but.....

AIBU to think this is slander or defamation of his character (the school were on the defense team of the tribunal) designed to make Ds character look questionable as it had nothing to do with the case in hand directly.

[abbsisspartacus]

Bring it up

They treated you like shit

[youarenotkiddingme]

Yeah they did - which can cloud my judgement.

but is it slander to do that?

[Trifleorbust]

I think to successfully bring a case of slander or defamation against someone you have to prove that what they said about you affected your reputation in a way that had a financial cost to you. A solicitor could advise you better but I believe that to be the case.

[MatchyMatcha]

That's shockingly bad. I remember your original thread. Contact IPSEA.

[youarenotkiddingme]

I don't plan on suing for slander - haven't the headspace fir that now! But I'm wondering if it's worth persuing this alongside a complaint or adding it on.

They really are twats

They were so desperate to talk the talk about how wonderful they are and cover their own arses even the tribunal judge did a judge rinder to them. But this wasn't about them - it was about whether Ds may need an EHCP to meet his needs.

[Trifleorbust]

Doubtful that it is worth mentioning specifically as slander. Just focus on what they said that wasn't true.

[Trifleorbust]

Oh I see, the complaint is about your DS' needs. No, I would stick to the relevant facts.

[AnchorDownDeepBreath]

I wouldn't mention it as slander - I don't think you'd meet the legal definition and although it's not relevant, I suspect their legal team would make a big show out of proving it wasn't slander rather than responding to what actually happened, to discredit your side. I would mention that it was irrelevant to the case in hand and untrue, just to have that on the record, and then focus on the actual case. Everyone else in the room should be professional enough to disregard it as irrelevant anyway.

[RB68]

its lying in court but not slander in my view, if reports were made to the police there will be a number associated with that try and get a hold of that and then you can prove that they made statements to the police at that time when it was reported. If the judge is already annoyed by them then a small amount of proof will tip the balance and he will address that in court if it is pervasive within statements they are making.

Your issue here is they are providing false evidence, not sure for what purpose to be honest other than to make them look good. Ask yourself if they are trying to divert from the core of the matter you are in court for - I think that is likely to be honest.

[youarenotkiddingme]

The tribunal yesterday isn't anything to do with school or the complaint. It's completely seperate.

It was where the la refuse to carry our a statutory assessment for a child with Sen parents can appeal to a first teir tribunal to have case considered independently by a law and measured on legal terms. Eg can I prove evidence to meet the legal threshold to assess.
Anything that goes on in school is irrelevant - they just have to provide evidence of what they've tried, progress, what support they have in school already available, and answer if they can provide certain support when asked by a judge.

Judge did ask why a managed move was carried out and they could have said truth - Ds was too anxious to attend which is true or something else - but it's the fact they made an untrue statement and a lie which, I believe was used to discredit Ds.

Rather than what they know as the truth - they were shit and refused to meet me to discuss incident and how to support Ds. At least I was able to show judge the attendence record which showed his unauthorised absense they gave when I phoned him in sick with anxiety!

[youarenotkiddingme]

Well half the issue is the information given to police. I have written evidence from school matching Ds statement to them. But school told police a different version, it didn't reach police criteria for investigation and I raised complaint about the way the handled it - rather than it happening. I'm realistic enough to know the incident itself was out of schools control - it's one of those awful things that unfortunately does happen.
But schools response to complaint was that incident didn't happen and they misreported it to me in the first place.
They don't deny the child had a knife and he was excluded for 2 days for carrying it.

[JellyBelli]

If they said it at a tribunal, isnt it counted as perjury? It would be at an employment tribunal.

[youarenotkiddingme]

Possibly! I'll google!

[JaniceBattersby]

It's not defamation or slander because it was said in a court room. There is absolute privilege attached to anything said in a courtroom which is a complete defence to any defamation proceedings. You can basically say whatever you like and not be sued for it. Similarly, the House of Commons also has privilege so an MP can say whatever they want in the house and never be sued for it.

[youarenotkiddingme]

I'm not planning on suing.

But I will be careful about how I word it as I don't want to use words they can legally argue against (eg slander) when the truth is actually just she lied about what Ds said and that lie painted a bad picture of Ds.

Thanks all. I love MN when it's a case of "AIBU, mad and over reacting" and you get calm measured and nice replies saying well yes, legally you are but you have a point rather than what I feared would be "good god woman - let it go, YABU, does it matter" and the usual pile on I see.

to you all.