The phrase "indefensible by" is grammatically correct and can be used in written English.
It is typically used to describe something that cannot be defended or justified by any means. Example: "The actions of the dictator were indefensible by any moral standard." This sentence means that no moral principles or beliefs could justify the actions of the dictator.
The arrangement was condemned as "indefensible" by the Tory leader, David Cameron.
Burnham said the health secretary had squandered thousands of pounds' worth of taxpayers' money "trying to protect his own pride and defend the indefensible" by appealing against a high court verdict in favour of Lewisham campaigners and the council in the summer.
And he did not try to defend the indefensible by claiming that Aaron Hunt was always nice to his gran, or that he volunteered as a lollipop man on schoolday mornings, or that he donated half his income to save stray Ukrainian dogs from execution.
Absolute and indefensible by their very nature, carrying the despicable and desolate mark of inhumanity.
He's lied often and lied again to support his lies, which have been deemed indefensible by many detractors, including lambasters in his newly adopted party.
Until Justice Department lawyers acting at the behest of Vice President Cheney crafted politicized memos approving the practice (which have been repudiated as indefensible by their successors), waterboarding had been universally condemned as torture.
I'm not talking about what the hateful yahoos who are attending rallies for the Republican ticket are yelling (albeit after being egged on by a flurry of indefensible attacks by the McCain campaign and its surrogates).
"But never more so than with this indefensible decision by a Revolutionary Court to convict an innocent journalist of serious crimes after a proceeding that unfolded in secret, with no evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoing".
David Cameron apologised in the House of Commons for indefensible conduct by South Yorkshire police, whose statements were changed as part of an orchestrated effort to divert blame for the 96 deaths from the police's own failings, on to the supporters themselves.
The Post's executive editor, Martin Baron, said the conviction was "an outrageous injustice, adding: "Iran has behaved unconscionably throughout this case, but never more so than with this indefensible decision by a revolutionary court to convict an innocent journalist of serious crimes after a proceeding that unfolded in secret, with no evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoing.
"Iran has behaved unconscionably throughout this case, but never more so than with this indefensible decision by a Revolutionary Court to convict an innocent journalist of serious crimes after a proceeding that unfolded in secret, with no evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoing," he said in a statement.
