alj724 defamation lecture 2013
DESCRIPTION
Notes and tips on Australian defamation law and defences. A guide for journalists and communication professionals who want to stay out of legal trouble around libel issues.TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Defamation: Action and Defences
•What constitutes defamation?•When does defamation occur?•How can you defend yourself?
Notes prepared by Paul Bethell & Martin Hirst
![Page 2: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
DEFAMATION
• The law that most affects journalists, writers and publishers
• Competing rights – free speech against right to defend reputation
• History of Defamation law in Australia – formerly different state and territory laws
• New laws introduced by all states and territories in 2006 now unify the law right across Australia
![Page 3: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Defamation – a definition
• For a defamation action to be successful, three elements must be satisfied:1. the information was communicated by the defendant to
a third person other than the plaintiff (publication);
2. the material identifies the plaintiff (identification); and
3. the information/material contains matter that is defamatory, regardless of whether the material was intentionally published or not (defamatory matter).
What is defamation?At its simplest, defamation is tospread bad reports about someonewhich could do them harm.
![Page 4: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
DEFAMATION• It can be a VERY LONG process.• It can be VERY EXPENSIVE – for both sides.• Many cases don’t get to court as a result.• New laws made some attempt at reform• Personal damages capped at @$300,000 –
but per publication?• Aggravated damages also possible • Costs can also be awarded and can be
HUGE!
![Page 5: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
DEFAMATION• At the heart of defamation is the
concept of a lowered “reputation”
• Lawyers work on “imputations” – what are the main messages or impressions that the average consumer/reader/viewer/listener would get?
• The intention of the writer/broadcaster isn’t important
![Page 6: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
DEFAMATION• “I'M THE VICTIM, WAILS
BOOZING, POT-SMOKING, VIOLENT, RACIST, COWARDLY, UNAPOLOGETIC, LYING, ODIOUS, TRANSFER-LISTED LEE BOWYER (NOW TRY TO SUE US YOU LITTLE SCUMBAG!) “ Daily Mirror (UK), 19 Dec 2001
• What are the ‘imputations’ of this story?
![Page 7: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
DEFAMATION
• An action for defamation doesn’t RESTORE your reputation but merely allows you to seek damages for pain and suffering or for economic loss.
• “Slander” and “libel” distinction now abolished - Use the term “defamation” in all cases.
• It is mainly a CIVIL law matter – so PLAINTIFFS SUE DEFENDANTS . Defendants are found either LIABLE or NOT LIABLE for DAMAGES and also COSTS.
![Page 8: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
DEFAMATION
• CHECKLIST APPROACH:• Best to take it step by step:
• Is there a defamation in theory?• Is the plaintiff identified?• Has there been ‘publication’? • Are there any defences
available?
![Page 9: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
DEFAMATION
• 1. IS THERE A DEFAMATION IN THEORY?
• Concept of REPUTATION. • Courts will look for “imputations” -
What others think about you• NOT what you think about yourself PERSONAL REPUTATION PROFESSIONAL REPUTATION
![Page 10: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
DEFAMATION
• TEST FOR DEFAMATORY MATERIAL - Ask - does the material -
• EXPOSE THE PERSON TO HATRED CONTEMPT OR RIDICULE?
• LOWER THE PERSON ‘IN THE ESTIMATION OF A RIGHT-THINKING MEMBER OF SOCIETY’?
• CAUSE THE PERSON TO BE ‘SHUNNED OR AVOIDED’?
![Page 11: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
DEFAMATION
• It doesn’t have to be words. Cartoons, photographs, video, even the layout of stories on a page can be a problem…..
• The test is: “HOW WOULD THE ORDINARY PERSON INTERPRET IT? WHAT MEANING WOULD THE ORDINARY PERSON GET FROM THE MATERIAL?
• Negatives and denials are no defence. • Mistaken identity no defence
![Page 12: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
DEFAMATION
• 2. IS THE PLAINTIFF IDENTIFIED?• In order to have your reputation
lowered you need to be identified
• Beware INNUENDO
• Important to be precise about the person you are writing about (“Detective Lee” case 1934).
• Beware using fictitious names – Artemus Jones case 1910.
See Pearson 4e pp:196-198
![Page 13: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
DEFAMATION
• Groups of people can sue – IF they are thought to be referred to – Mount Druitt Case 2000.
• “Corporations” with more than 10 employees + “public bodies” like councils CANNOT sue.
• But charities and not-for-profit organisations CAN still sue.
• The dead can’t sue (except in Tasmania).
![Page 14: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
The class we failed
• Implication students had failed their HSC exams
• Identified individuals as members of this group of failed students
• Students successfully sued and won an apology
On 8 January 1997, the Daily Telegraph published the headline, "The class we failed" concerning was the Year 12 class at Mount Druitt High School in outer Western Sydney in which no student scored a Tertiary Entrance Rank (TER) above 50 (the maximum possible mark is 100).
Although the article made clear that the newspaper believed that the state had failed the students, many accused the Telegraph of branding the students themselves as failures and showing a full year photo identifying students.
![Page 15: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
DEFAMATION• 3. HAS THERE BEEN PUBLICATION?• Must be communicated to a third party. • The medium doesn’t matter• Publication is where the material is
RECEIVED (Dow Jones v. Gutnick 2002).• Anyone involved in publication can be sued • Anonymity online isn’t guaranteed • Actions can be brought up to 1 year from
publication.
![Page 16: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
DEFAMATION
• RECAP ON DEFAMATION ESSENTIALS:• Has a reputation been lowered?
• Is the plaintiff identified?
• Has there been ‘publication’?
• If all these are satisfied,then the court will discusswhether there is a defence.
![Page 17: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
DEFAMATION DEFENCES
• The defences split into two categories: • Those that are based on the material
complained of being true (Truth and Honest Opinion)
• Those that can succeed even if the material isn’t true (Absolute Privilege, Fair Report and Qualified Privilege, Innocent Dissemination, Triviality, Offer of Amends).
![Page 18: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
DEFAMATION
• TRUTH OR JUSTIFICATION DEFENCE• Truth doesn’t lower a reputation, it corrects
it.
• Material published must be “substantially true”.
• However, truth needs to be proved – evidence is needed
• Standard of proof - ‘on a balance of probabilities’
![Page 19: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
HONEST OPINION
• Relates mainly to opinion, comment, reviews and criticism. • Opinion pages, editorials, sports, arts, film,
music, restaurant reviews and also to letters and possibly weblogs and online comments.
A newspaper in Sydney has been successfully sued by a restaurant group after one of their food critics wrote a scathing review of his experience in their establishment.
The Australian courts have ordered John Fairfax Publications, the owners of The Sydney Morning Herald, to pay the owners of the Sydney restaurant, Coco Roco, on charges of defamation.
![Page 20: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
HONEST OPINION
• It must relate to a matter of public interest
• The opinion must be based on “proper material” – either true facts or matters protected by privilege.
• This “proper material” must be contained in the publication, or must be widely known.
• The opinion must be “honestly held” – that is the action is not malicious
![Page 21: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
FAIR REPORT
• Protects “fair and accurate” reports of court and parliament
• Also includes other meetings such as: proceedings of “a sport or recreation association”, a “trade association”, a “public meeting…. of shareholders”
• or a “public meeting (with or without restriction on the people attending) held anywhere in Australia if the proceedings relate to a matter of public interest”.
![Page 22: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
allows free communication in certain relationships without the risk of an action for defamation –
generally where the person communicating the statement has a legal, moral or social duty to make it and the recipient has a corresponding interest in receiving it
QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE
Matters raised on the floor of the legislature (state & federal); OR
statements made in the course of judicial proceedings made by parties, witness, legal representative, members of the jury, or by the judge attracts ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE
The defence of absolute privilege is attached to the occasion and not the content
![Page 23: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE• Allows things to be published that may be
defamatory even if they can’t be proved• Must involve important, urgent matters
and issues that should be brought to public attention
• But the journalist must act “reasonably in the circumstances” – high standards and motives are required
![Page 24: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE
• What does “reasonably in the circumstances” mean?
• the extent to which the matter is of public interest and whether it needed to be published urgently
• the extent to which the matter relates to the performance of public functions or activities of the plaintiff
• how serious the defamatory imputation is
![Page 25: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE• the extent to which
suspicion, allegation and proven fact is distinguished
• the integrity of the sources• whether there was a
reasonable attempt to get the plaintiff’s side of the story and publish this response
• the steps taken to verify the information.
![Page 26: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
POLITICAL QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE• Lange v. Australian Broadcasting
Corporation 1997 – Common law case• Australian constitution contained an
“implied guarantee” that people in Australia should be free to discuss matters of government and politics
• But publication must be “reasonable in the circumstances”
• Common Law Qualified Privilege – relates to personal disclosures
![Page 27: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
INNOCENT DISSEMINATION
• Gives protection to people who sell or distribute defamatory material but who couldn’t be expected to know that it was defamatory.
• But would rarely be available to journalists,
writers or publishers – except with live broadcasting “in which the broadcaster has no effective control over the person who makes the statements”
“newsagent’s defence”
![Page 28: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
INNOCENT DISSEMINATION
• It typically would affect newsagents or libraries• Doesn’t affect Internet Service Providers • But controversial for weblogs and discussion
forums• ISPs are deemed to have “no effective
control” over websites• But the websites ARE deemed to have
“effective control” over people who post on them
![Page 29: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
TRIVIALITY
• “It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that the circumstances of publication were such that the plaintiff was unlikely to sustain any harm.”
• Possible defence for comedy and satire – no-one is expected to take it seriously and so there is no consequent damage to reputation
![Page 30: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
OFFER OF AMENDS DEFENCE• Without accepting liability, a publisher
can make an “offer to make amends”• Needs to be made in writing “as soon as
practicable” after the publisher became aware of the alleged defamation,
• But must be within 28 days of a written complaint being made about the material which details the plaintiff’s concerns.
![Page 31: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
OFFER OF AMENDSDEFENCE
• It MUST contain an offer topublish a correction
• It MUST contain an offer to payany reasonable expenses incurred by the plaintiff (the costs of legal advice)
• It MAY contain an offer of an apology• It MAY contain an offer to pay
compensation for economic damages
![Page 32: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
OFFER OF AMENDS DEFENCE
• Can be a complete defence – even if refused by the plaintiff - as long as it is:
• “reasonable in all the circumstances”, taking into account things like:
• the prominence and speed of the correction or apology
• the extent to which it reached the same audience or readership as the initial defamation.
![Page 33: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
NON-DEFAMATION REMEDIES
• Battle in negotiations over the new defamation laws about whether businesses could use defamation
• The new Defamation Acts prevent “corporations” of more than 10 employees from suing.
• It means businesses must look to other legal remedies when their business reputation is damaged.
![Page 34: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974
• Applies to “corporations” in the course of “trade and commerce”
• S.52(1) deceptive and misleading conduct
• S. 53 False or misleading representations • Can be sued by anyone who feels they
were misled or deceived and by anyone who claims they’ve lost money as a result of being misled or deceived….
![Page 35: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974
• BUT - Section 65A Defence:• S.52 and 53 do not apply to “prescribed
information providers” • Defined as “a person who carries on a
business of providing information”• So news organisations – a bit like “innocent
disseminators” – they can’t vouch for the information provided to them by interviewees and other sources
![Page 36: ALJ724 defamation lecture 2013](https://reader034.vdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022052504/5549420eb4c9050a4d8b51e2/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Reading
• Pearson: Journalist’s guide 4e Ch.8-9• Pearson: Blogging & tweeting Ch.2• Leiboff: Creative Practive Ch.6