The disgraced John Delaney

With the former, the State brings the prosecuton against you and the penalty may include gaol, meaning that they are also obliged to provide you with a legal advocate on the State's tab.

Whereas wth a Civil matter like Defamation, it is the Plaintiff's own choice to bring the case to court and he/she must pay for any legal representation he/she employs in doing so.

With Civil cases the only remedy is financial and if you persuade the jury of the merit of your case, the Judge wll normally award damages and costs in your favour.

But sometimes the Judge will consider that while technically "defamed", the Plantiff nonetheless suffered little or no reputational damage and wll reduce the damages accordingly. And in rare cases where eg he/she considers the Plaintiff has been vexatious or opportunist in bringing the case ("taking the piss", basically), and/or is sympathetic towards the Defendant for some reason, then the Plaintff's legal costs may also be withheld.

All of which explains why so many people who feel they've been defamed by people or organisations wealthier than them are still reluctant to bring a case, even when they believe their chances of winning are high.

Unless, of course, they've got a generous employer behind them, who'll bankroll the costs and not even look to recover them in the event that the bastar..., er, their sorely defamed employee, wins.