Carleton v Australian Broadcasting Corporation

This case involves a defamation claim brought by three journalists against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), one of its employees, and a television program called Media Watch. The plaintiffs claim that Media Watch defamed them by accusing them of plagiarism and lazy journalism in relation to a documentary they produced about the Srebrenica massacre. The plaintiffs sought damages for defamation in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The court found that the Media Watch program did convey defamatory imputations of plagiarism and lazy journalism, but also found that the defendants had available to them the defences of common law qualified privilege, statutory qualified privilege, fair comment, and comment. The court held that the defences of qualified privilege and fair comment were available to the defendants, and that the defence of comment was also available in New South Wales. The court further found that the defence of fair comment was not defeated by malice, as the defendants honestly believed in the truth of the comments they made. As a result, the plaintiffs were not entitled to damages for defamation. The court also noted the potential for law reform in cases such as this, where a person is defamed but unable to obtain a legal remedy due to the availability of certain defences.