CDL v Seven West Media - [2025] WASC 53

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   CDL -v- SEVEN WEST MEDIA [2025] WASC 53
CORAM:   SOLOMON J
HEARD:   29 JANUARY 2025
DELIVERED          :   29 JANUARY 2025
PUBLISHED           :   24 FEBRUARY 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1055 of 2023
BETWEEN:   CDL
Plaintiff

AND

SEVEN WEST MEDIA
First Defendant

WEST AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Defamation - Admissibility of proposed evidence - Admissibility of evidence that seeks to displace prior criminal convictions in subsequent civil proceedings - Case management direction - Early ruling on proposed evidence

Legislation:

Criminal Code Act 1913 (WA, s 218, s 220), s 321A

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 1 r 4(b), O 1 r 4(b)(1), O 4A r 2, O 4A r 2(2)

Result:

Application granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	In Person
First Defendant	:	Ms R Young SC & Mr P C McCarthy
Second Defendant	:	Ms R Young SC & Mr P C McCarthy

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	In Person
First Defendant	:	Steedman Stagg Lawyers
Second Defendant	:	Steedman Stagg Lawyers

Cases referred to in decision:

Bennett v State of Western Australia [2012] WASCA 70
CDL v State of Western Australia [2022] WASCA 145
CDL v State of Western Australia [2022] WASCA 18
Mickelberg v Director of the Perth Mint [1986] WAR 365
Smargiassi Nominees Pty Ltd v Shire of Collie [2024] WASC 16

SOLOMON J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 29 January 2025 and has been edited from the transcript).

This is the defendants' application for a ruling that certain aspects of intended evidence sought to be adduced by the plaintiff in respect of this matter should be the subject of the court's determination that the proposed or anticipated evidence is inadmissible.

Background

It is necessary to give a brief background in respect of this claim. The plaintiff's claim relates to an article published in the West Australian newspaper on 5 March 2022. The article is entitled 'Child abuser loses sentence appeal'.
It is a short article that is accompanied by a photo of the plaintiff and reads as follows:[1]
A paedophile lollipop man, who was jailed for more than a decade for his sexual abuse of several young girls, has had his appeal against that jail term thrown out by WA's highest court. The plaintiff, whose picture is on the right, filmed the abuse, some of which went on for years, but he refused to accept the verdict of a jury which, in 2019, found him guilty of eight charges of persistent sexual abuse of a child and producing child pornography. He was also found to have hoarded more than 26,000 independent videos and photographs depicting children as young as one. The plaintiff was a traffic warden at a Western Suburbs primary school for 14 years before his arrest. After his detention, he continued to claim nothing sexual was shown in any of the videos. In an appeal, which he ran himself, the plaintiff said that the judge accepted hearsay evidence, used opinion…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read CDL v Seven West Media and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] WASC 53
Decision Date: 24 FEBRUARY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this case were CDL, a company, and Seven West Media, a media organisation. The dispute involved an allegation of defamation made by CDL against Seven West Media, focusing on the admissibility of certain evidence in the civil proceedings. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the admissibility of proposed evidence that sought to displace prior criminal convictions in the subsequent civil defamation action.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether evidence that sought to displace prior criminal convictions in civil proceedings could be admitted. The court had to balance the relevance and probative value of such evidence against the potential for unfair prejudice to the opposing party. Additionally, the court considered whether the case management direction warranted an early ruling on the proposed evidence to ensure a fair and efficient trial.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the principles governing the admissibility of evidence in civil proceedings. The court found that evidence which seeks to displace prior criminal convictions must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the prior convictions and their relevance to the current proceedings. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that such evidence does not unfairly prejudice the opposing party. Ultimately, the court determined that the proposed evidence was not admissible as it did not meet the threshold for relevance and probative value, and it was likely to cause undue prejudice to the opposing party. The court also noted that an early ruling on the admissibility of such evidence was appropriate in this case to manage the proceedings effectively.

The court's final orders included a direction that the proposed evidence would not be admitted in the civil defamation proceedings. The court also provided further directions for the management of the case, including the timelines for filing additional evidence and the scheduling of hearings.

Orders