Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v Manock - [2007] HCATrans 416

[2007] HCATrans 416

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Adelaide No A21 of 2007

B e t w e e n -
CHANNEL SEVEN ADELAIDE PTY LTD
Appellant
and
DR COLIN MANOCK
Respondent

GLEESON CJ
GUMMOW J
KIRBY J
HAYNE J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT ADELAIDE ON WEDNESDAY, 8 AUGUST 2007, AT 9.31 AM

(Continued from 7/8/07)

GLEESON CJ: Yes, Mr Reynolds.

MR REYNOLDS: Thank you, your Honour. Can I announce my appearance this morning with my learned friend, Ms A. Williamson. I would like to deal this morning first of all briefly with - - -

KIRBY J: I cannot hear you.

MR REYNOLDS: I must start off very gently, your Honour. I will speak up now.

GLEESON CJ: I want to hear every word.

MR REYNOLDS: I will start off with three points in relation to what I will describe as the Kemsley v Foot issue and then I will deal with each of the four issues which we understand arise on the appeal. The first matter I wanted to raise in relation to the Kemsley issue or the issue about identification of facts is that I submitted yesterday that if your Honours were to accept a defence in this form, your Honours would require a proper pleading of knowledge of the relevant facts. I took your Honours briefly to the decision in Lowe which tends to support that proposition. There is a second group of particulars which, I submit, would also need to be in this pleading which are not currently there. The problem, I submit, with the current particulars is that there is a whole series of argumentative conclusions or opinions which are not stated with relevant primary facts and, I submit, that it is a bread and butter proposition in this area of the law that the comment must be based on factual material, not other comments.

If the material which is in the particulars was itself in the matter complained of the submission would be made that that material is not fact, it is clearly argumentative conclusions without stating the primary facts; therefore, in effect, it is comment on comment. I submit that the defendant should not be in a better position by reason of not having put any of this material in the matter complained of than it would be if it had put that material in the matter complained of, because this defence, as your Honours well know, is based upon a clear demarcation in the publication of, one, statement of facts, two, statement of opinions based on the relevant facts.

HAYNE J: In respect of that distinction, some preliminary examination suggests that these matters were matters of examination in the United States in the 1960s and before. For my own part, I would be assisted by whatever the parties may wish to later submit having regard, among other things, to these sources: first, the Restatement of the Law…

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 Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v Manock

Details

AGLC: Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v Manock [2007] HCATrans 416
Case: [2007] HCATrans 416
Decision Date: 8 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal from the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia concerning a defamation action brought by Mr. Manock against Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd. Mr. Manock alleged that a television broadcast by Channel Seven implied he was guilty of criminal conduct, specifically that he had been involved in the murder of his former wife. The broadcast in question was part of a news report concerning the acquittal of another individual, Mr. Peter Storer, of the murder of Mr. Manock's former wife.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the broadcast conveyed defamatory imputations concerning Mr. Manock, and if so, whether Channel Seven had established a defence to the defamation claim. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the ordinary reasonable viewer would understand the broadcast to mean that Mr. Manock was guilty of the murder, or that he had been involved in it, and whether the defence of contextual truth, as provided by defamation legislation, was available to Channel Seven.

The High Court, by majority, found that the broadcast did not convey the imputation that Mr. Manock was guilty of the murder of his former wife. The Court reasoned that while the broadcast discussed the murder and Mr. Storer's acquittal, it did not, when viewed in its entirety and by an ordinary reasonable viewer, suggest Mr. Manock's guilt. The judges applied principles of defamation law concerning the ordinary reasonable person's understanding of broadcast material, emphasising that the context of the entire broadcast was crucial. The defence of contextual truth was therefore not engaged as the primary defamatory imputation was not established.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia and ordering that judgment be entered for the defendant, Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd.

Orders