Estimated reading time (in minutes)
Libelous accusations in private correspondence
Defamatory accusations made in personal and private correspondence, aimed exclusively at the addressee of the letter, are subject to criminal sanctions only if the letter was sent under conditions of absolute confidentiality. This offence, known as non-public defamation, is punishable by article R. 621-1 of the penal code .
Confidentiality as an obstacle to prosecution
In an important decision of April 11, 2012, the criminal chamber reassessed the criteria for establishing the offense of non-public defamation. The division has adopted an established solution that recognizes the importance of confidentiality in determining criminal liability.
Generally, an abusive or defamatory letter that meets the requirements of private correspondence is qualified as non-public defamation, since it lacks publicity according to article 23 of the law of July 29, 1881 (as interpreted by the courts). However, the defamatory accusations in question can only be punished if the letter was sent under exclusive circumstances of absolute confidentiality.
This approach emphasizes the importance of confidentiality in determining the criminality of non-public defamation. Simple insults or defamatory statements in private correspondence may be considered less serious offences. However, when confidentiality of correspondence is breached, it may give rise to a higher degree of legal liability.
The Criminal Chamber’s decision sets an important precedent in clarifying the parameters of non-public defamation. He points out that the lack of publicity, coupled with confidentiality, plays a central role in determining the seriousness of the legal consequences.
Lawyers and legal professionals refer to this decision to establish the conditions necessary for the offense of non-public defamation. It ensures that private correspondence remains protected and that persons who engage in confidential communications do not expose themselves unduly to criminal liability, except in exceptional circumstances.
Overall, the decision strikes a balance between freedom of expression and the need to protect the confidentiality and integrity of personal communications. Recognizing the importance of confidentiality, it clarifies the legal consequences associated with defamatory accusations made in private correspondence.
