SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Full Court)
CHANNEL SEVEN ADELAIDE PTY LTD v S, DJ
[2007] SASC 117
Judgment of The Full Court
(The Honourable Justice Perry, The Honourable Justice Duggan and The Honourable Justice David)
4 April 2007
DEFAMATION - ACTIONS FOR DEFAMATION - PARTICULARS - OF STATEMENT OF DEFENCE OR PLEA - JUSTIFICATION
Action for alleged libellous statements in television broadcast in which the plaintiff/respondent was named as a suspect in a murder case - appeal from interlocutory order of Master striking out defence plea of particulars of justification - held that particulars properly struck out on the ground that they set out the nature and outcome of police investigations, whereas justification must be based on objective and direct evidence of actions or statements by the defendant/appellant - particulars also breached the "repetition" rule - appeal dismissed.
DEFAMATION - FAIR COMMENT - IN GENERAL - DISTINCTION BETWEEN COMMENT AND STATEMENT OF FACT
Cross-appeal by plaintiff/respondent in relation to Master's refusal to strike out defendant/appellant's plea of fair comment - discussion of distinction between comment and statement of fact - held that to say of somebody that they are a suspect in a murder case is to make a straightforward statement of fact which cannot be characterised as a statement of opinion - cross-appeal allowed.
Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 r 280(2); Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Act 1988 s 19, referred to.
Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234; Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Harrison (1982) 149 CLR 293; Whelan v John Fairfax & Sons (1988) 12 NSWLR 148; Shah and Anor v Standard Chartered Bank [1999] QB 241; Jackson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd and Anor (1981) 1 NSWLR 36; Rakimov v Australian Broadcastng Corporation (unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, 25 January 2001, judgment no [2001] NSWSC 10), discussed.
S v Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd and Anor (unreported, White J, 24 February 2005, judgment no [2005] SASC 182); Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd and Anor v S, DJ (unreported) Full Court, 20 November 2006, judgment no [2006] SASC 10); S, DJ v Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd and Anor (unreported), Full Court, 8 March 2007, judgment no [2007] SASC 80), considered.
CHANNEL SEVEN ADELAIDE PTY LTD v S, DJ
[2007] SASC 117Full Court: Perry, Duggan and David JJ
PERRY J. Corrina Marr was murdered on 4 July 1997. Despite an extensive police investigation, no-one has so far been charged with the crime.
In August 2000, Ms Patricia Draper, a member of the House of Representatives, undertook a trip abroad, described as “overseas study travel”.
The plaintiff, as at the time of institution of these proceedings in 2004, was a 34-year old professional photographer. He accompanied Ms Draper on the trip.
On Friday and Saturday 14 and 15 May 2004 Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd (“Channel Seven”) broadcast on television a program described as a “promotion” for it’s Today Tonight program scheduled to go to…
Continue reading Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v S, DJ
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v S, DJ [2007] SASC 117
- Case
- [2007] SASC 117
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the defence plea of particulars of justification was properly struck out because it detailed the police investigations rather than providing direct evidence necessary for justification. The court held that the "repetition" rule was also breached, which further justified the striking out of the plea. Regarding the plea of fair comment, the court ruled that identifying someone as a suspect in a murder case constituted a straightforward statement of fact, rather than an opinion. The court rejected the defendant's attempt to characterise this statement as a comment by suggesting that it was accompanied by reasonable grounds for suspicion. This reasoning was deemed unsound and not reasonably arguable.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal by Channel Seven, finding that the plea of justification was improperly particularised. The court allowed the plaintiff's cross-appeal and ordered that the defence plea of fair comment be struck out. The court upheld the orders proposed by Perry J, finding them to be appropriate and well-reasoned.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: PERRY J, DAVID J
Full text does not contain this section.