Defamation—Qualified protection—Functions of judge and jury—Criminal Code (Q) s 377(8). Defamation—Qualified protection—"subject of public interest"—Common law meaning—Criminal Code (Q) s 377(8). Defamation—Qualified protection—"in the course of or for the purposes of" discussion—Initiating discussion—Relevance—Criminal Code (Q) s 377(8). Defamation—Qualified Protection—Discussion of a subject of public interest—Whether for "public benefit"—Criminal Code (Q) s 377(8). Defamation—Qualified Protection—Good faith—Relevance—Manner and extent of publication—Naming plaintiff—Criminal Code (Q) s 377(8). Criminal Code (Q) s 377(8). Defamation Act 1889 (Q) s 17(8). Defamation Act 1958 (NSW) s 17.

Headnote

Hearing

BRISBANE, 19-20 June 1995
#DATE 28:3:1996, CANBERRA

Counsel for the Appellant C.E.K. Hampson QC with
P.D.T. Applegarth

Solicitors for the Appellant Myles Thompson

Counsel for the Respondent R.A. Mulholland QC with
D.K. Boddice

Solicitors for the Respondent Biggs and Biggs Francis
and McGregor

Orders

1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside the order of the Queensland Court of Appeal dismissing the appeal.
3. In lieu of the said order of the Queensland Court of Appeal, order:
(a) that the appeal to that Court be allowed;
(b) that the matter be remitted to the Supreme Court of Queensland for a new trial.
4. The respondent pay the costs of the appellant in the Queensland Court of Appeal and in this Court.

Decisions

BRENNAN CJ. The respondent ("the ABC") telecast in its national "Four Corners" series a programme entitled "The Moonlight State" on 11 and 17 May 1987. The programme purported to expose corruption in the administration of the Queensland Police Force whereby protection was given, with the concurrence or connivance of State political figures, to persons controlling illegal drug trafficking, illegal gambling and prostitution. After referring to the position in Brisbane, in which Geraldo and Antonio Bellino, the brothers of the appellant Vincenzo Bellino, were named as being involved in these illegal activities, the programme contained passages relating to Vincenzo Bellino's activities in North Queensland. The more significant passages of the transcript taken of the programme are set out in the judgment of Dawson, McHugh and Gummow JJ and I need not repeat them.

2. The appellant, claiming that he was unlawfully defamed in the programme, sued the ABC for damages for defamation in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The ABC pleaded the excuse provided for by s 377(8) of The Criminal Code (Q) which reads:
"It is a lawful excuse for the publication of defamatory matter -

...

(8) If the publication is made in good faith in the course of, or
for the purposes of, the discussion of some subject of public interest, the public discussion of which is for the public benefit, and if, so far as the defamatory matter consists of comment, the comment is fair.
For the purposes of this section, a publication is said to be made
in good faith if the matter published is relevant to the matters the existence of which may excuse the publication…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bellino v Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Details

AGLC: Bellino v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [1996] HCA 47
Case: [1996] HCA 47
Decision Date: 28 March 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Mr Bellino against a decision of the Federal Court of Australia. Mr Bellino had brought proceedings against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) alleging that certain broadcasts by the ABC constituted a contravention of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (now s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law). The core of the dispute concerned whether the ABC's broadcasts, which reported on allegations of corruption against Mr Bellino, were misleading or deceptive in contravention of the Act.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the ABC's broadcasts, which conveyed information about allegations of corruption against Mr Bellino, were misleading or deceptive conduct within the meaning of s 52 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). This required the Court to determine whether the broadcasts, viewed objectively, had the capacity to mislead or deceive the relevant audience, and if so, whether the ABC was liable for such conduct.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, held that the broadcasts were not misleading or deceptive. The Court reasoned that the broadcasts accurately conveyed the fact that allegations of corruption had been made against Mr Bellino and that these allegations were the subject of an investigation. The Court emphasised that the ABC had not presented these allegations as established facts but rather as matters that were being investigated. The legal principle applied was that a statement is not misleading or deceptive merely because it conveys information that is later found to be untrue, provided that the statement accurately reflects the state of knowledge or belief at the time it was made and does not create a false impression. The Court found that the ABC had acted responsibly in reporting on matters of public interest and that the broadcasts did not create a misleading impression about Mr Bellino's guilt or innocence. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders