Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v S, DJ

Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd initiated proceedings against S, DJ, alleging defamation from statements broadcast on television that identified the plaintiff as a suspect in a murder case. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, which was called upon to determine the validity of the defence plea of justification and the plaintiff's request to strike out the defence plea of fair comment. The core legal issue before the court was whether the particulars provided in the defence plea of justification were adequate, particularly considering they outlined the nature and outcome of police investigations rather than providing objective and direct evidence of actions or statements by the defendant. Additionally, the court had to discern whether the identification of the plaintiff as a suspect in a murder case constituted a statement of fact or a permissible comment.

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.