The rolled-up plea is a highly technical plea of ​​English libel law that defendants can usefully resort to when facts and comments are so inextricably linked that it is impossible to separate them.

In a defamation suit, the defendant maintains that his statements are true in substance and fact, and to the extent that they consist of expression of opinion. They express themselves in good faith and without malice for the public interest. This motif is called a “rolled motif.”

In a defamation lawsuit, if the defendant argues that he made the ‘fair comment’ in the interest of the public, but not to defame the plaintiff, the defendant may argue “that to the extent that the denounced words consist of allegations of fact, they are true in substance and in facts, and insofar as they consist of expressions of opinion, they are fair comments made in good faith and without malice on said facts that are in the public interest. “

This is the general aversion of the accused. Hence it is called “Rolled Supplication”. However, the courts not only believe in the defendant’s guilty plea, but delve into the background and actual intent of the defendant.

For example, if a comment is made on a book written by a person such as ‘It is a bad book and it is not useful to the public at all’, it is an authorized comment. If you make a comment like “It’s a bad book because it’s written by so-and-so.”