3. Common elements

On the other hand, however, libel and slander have much in common.²⁰² In both cases, a defamatory imputation is required—that is, an imputation which may tend "to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally"²⁰³ or "to expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule".²⁰ Furthermore, the element of publication is essential for both forms of defamation: the defamatory matter must have been communicated to somebody other than the person who is the subject of the defamatory imputation.²⁰⁵ Thus it is obvious that the interest protected is only man's estimation in the eyes of others—his reputation—and not his dignity or self-esteem.

Sir Matthew Hale's words in King v. Lake appear to suggest that the defamatory statement should have occurred with malice in order to be actionable. In fact it seems to have been necessary for the plaintiff to allege that the defendant had acted "falsely and maliciously". But this clause increasingly degenerated into a mere form of pleading, devoid of any substantive import.²¹¹⁷ Eventually it was laid down that actual malice was unnecessary to support an action in defamation.²⁰⁸ It does not even matter whether the defendant intended to injure the plaintiffs reputation:

"A person charged with libel cannot defend himself by showing that he intended in his own breast not to defame, or that he intended not to defame the plaintiff, if in fact he did both."²"-'

This statement is taken from the most famous (or perhaps most infamous) case in the law of libel, the landmark at which, according to Lord Denning,²¹⁰ the law took a wrong turning.

4.