CDL v Seven West Media [No 2] - [2025] WASC 471

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   CDL -v- SEVEN WEST MEDIA [No 2] [2025] WASC 471
CORAM:   SOLOMON J
HEARD:   22 - 23 OCTOBER 2025
DELIVERED          :   23 OCTOBER 2025
PUBLISHED           :   6 NOVEMBER 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1055 of 2023
BETWEEN:   CDL
Plaintiff
AND
SEVEN WEST MEDIA
First Defendant
WEST AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Defamation - Where newspaper published report on result of appeal against sentence for child sexual abuse - Whether use of term 'paedophile' defamatory in relation to person convicted for child sexual abuse - Whether newspaper article gave rise to certain imputations arising from use of the words 'lollipop man', 'child pornography' and 'sexual abuse' - Use made of prior criminal conviction in defamation proceedings - Defences of justification, contextual truth, substantial truth and fair reporting of proceedings of public concern - Whether Seven West Media was a publisher of the article

Legislation:

Defamation Act 2005 (WA)

Result:

Plaintiff's action dismissed

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:

CDL v Seven West Media [2025] WASC 53
CDL v The State of Western Australia [2022] WASCA 145
CDL v The State of Western Australia [2022] WASCA 18
Cummings v Fairfax Digital Australia & New Zealand Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 657
Lazos v West Australian Newspapers Ltd [No 2] [2024] WASC 238
Mickelberg v The Director of Perth Mint [1986] WAR 365
Mundine v Brown [2010] NSWSC 468
Wright v de Kauwe [2024] WASCA 51

SOLOMON J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 23 October 2025 and has been edited from the transcript).

Introduction

This matter is an action in defamation commenced by writ of summons filed on 20 January 2023 against Seven West Media and West Australian Newspapers by the plaintiff. There are suppression orders in respect of the identity of the people involved in the subject matter of the proceedings, and I shall therefore refer to the plaintiff as the plaintiff rather than by name, and names of others will be anonymised. The plaintiff claims damages for defamation in respect of an article published on page 44 of The West Australian newspaper on 5 March 2022 (Article).
The Article bore the headline 'Child abuser loses sentence appeal'. It was accompanied by a photograph of the plaintiff, and it contained the following content:[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…

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 [No 2] 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 471
Decision Date: 6 NOVEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of CDL v Seven West Media [No 2] involved a defamation claim brought by the plaintiff against Seven West Media, which published an article in the West Australian newspaper. The article discussed the outcome of an appeal against a sentence for child sexual abuse. The plaintiff alleged that the use of the term 'paedophile' in the article was defamatory as it implied he was guilty of the serious crime of child sexual abuse. The plaintiff further claimed that the article gave rise to certain imputations due to the use of terms such as 'lollipop man', 'child pornography', and 'sexual abuse'. The defendant argued that the article was a fair and accurate report of the outcome of a criminal case of public concern, and thus, was protected by the defences of justification, contextual truth, substantial truth, and fair reporting of proceedings of public concern. The court was required to determine whether the use of the term 'paedophile' in the article was defamatory and whether the defences raised by the defendant were applicable.

The court found that the term 'paedophile' was defamatory in the context of the article. The court held that the term implied that the plaintiff was guilty of the serious crime of child sexual abuse, which was damaging to his reputation. The court also found that the use of terms such as 'lollipop man', 'child pornography', and'sexual abuse' in the article gave rise to certain imputations that were defamatory. However, the court held that the defendant was protected by the defence of fair reporting of proceedings of public concern. The court found that the article was a fair and accurate report of the outcome of a criminal case of public concern, and thus, the defendant was entitled to rely on this defence. The court also held that the prior criminal conviction of the plaintiff could be used in the defamation proceedings to rebut the defence of justification.

The court ordered that the plaintiff take nothing by his action and that the defendant be entitled to its costs of the proceeding. The court held that the defence of fair reporting of proceedings of public concern was applicable, and thus, the defendant was not liable for defamation. The court further held that the prior criminal conviction of the plaintiff could be used in the defamation proceedings to rebut the defence of justification. The court found that the defendant had not acted maliciously in publishing the article, and thus, the defendant was entitled to its costs of the proceeding. The court did not make any orders in relation to the use of the prior criminal conviction in the defamation proceedings.

Orders