Copley v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd - [1993] QCA 18

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1993] QCA 018
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND	Appeal No. 179 of 1992
Before the Court of Appeal The President Mr Justice Davies Mr Justice Pincus
BETWEEN:

REGINALD JOHN COPLEY

(Plaintiff) Respondent

AND:

QUEENSLAND NEWSPAPERS PTY. LTD.

(Defendant) Appellant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Delivered the 22nd day of February, 1993

This is an appeal from a judgment delivered in the Trial Division on 30 July 1992 whereby the respondent was awarded $50,000.00 damages for defamation with interest of $4,250.00 and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the action, taxed as between solicitor and client. The sole ground of appeal is that the trial judge erred in finding that the words complained of were capable of conveying and did convey, imputations that the respondent:

(a) was involved in a conspiracy to cover up illegal
police activity; and
(b) did not honestly or properly perform his duties.

As the matter was argued for the appellant, it was conceded that the respondent was entitled to succeed in this Court if either defamatory imputation was conveyed, and it is convenient to consider the matter by reference only to imputation (b).

The action arose out of a feature article headed, in bold type, "Code of silence", which substantially occupied page 9 of the "Courier Mail" newspaper of Friday, September 1, 1989. The article was introduced by the following paragraph:

"This week charges were withdrawn against a police officer for his alleged involvement in a drunken spree at Toowoomba in March. In total, nine police were charged, but none was convicted. Joe Budd visited Toowoomba to investigate the rampage which, it would seem, never happened."
Then came the following six paragraphs:
"At the beginning, it seemed relatively clear-cut. A
group of police officers reportedly had dishonored the
force while on a three-day drinking spree in Toowoomba
during the Police Commissioner's Trophy rugby league
carnival in March.
Quoting angry locals, newspaper and television reports related that at least 50 police officers rampaged through pubs, motels and restaurants, assaulting people and destroying property.
Given the climate of the Fitzgerald inquiry at the time, people spoke out immediately, forcing an embarrassed State Government to launch an inquiry by Brisbane barrister Chris Carrigan Q.C.
Numerous witnesses willingly came forward to co- operate, in many cases identifying the officers responsible while detailing a shocking series of incidents.
Following the inquiry 15 charges were laid against nine police officers. All nine have now been dealt with. Not one has been convicted. Only one person - a civilian - has been successfully prosecuted.
Now, five months later, an investigation by The Courier Mail points to a cover-up by police, stretching from Toowoomba to Rockhampton and across the State. It also raises doubts the effectiveness of the legal processes in establishing what really happened."

Much of what initially followed concerned the alleged "cover up by police" rather than the "doubts" said to have been raised "about the effectiveness of the legal process in establishing…

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 Copley v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd 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: [1993] QCA 18
Decision Date: 22/02/1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Copley v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd involved the appellant, Copley, suing the respondent, Queensland Newspapers, for defamation. The dispute arose from an article published by the respondent that suggested a cover-up in relation to a prosecution, which Copley claimed defamed him by implying his involvement in a conspiracy and that he had acted dishonestly or improperly in the performance of his duties. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, which was required to determine whether the published article contained defamatory imputations concerning Copley.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the published article indeed implied that Copley was involved in a conspiracy and whether it imputed dishonesty or improper conduct on his part. The court examined the article's content and context, considering how reasonable readers might interpret the statements. It was necessary to analyse whether the language used in the article went beyond fair comment and criticism, entering the realm of defamatory statements that unfairly damaged Copley's reputation.

The Supreme Court of Queensland found that the published article did not contain any imputations that Copley was involved in a conspiracy. The court held that the language used in the article did not suggest Copley's direct involvement in any wrongdoing or improper conduct. It was concluded that the statements, while critical, did not amount to defamatory imputations that would unjustly harm Copley's reputation. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, ruling in favour of the respondent, Queensland Newspapers.

No further orders were made beyond the dismissal of the appeal. The court's decision clarified the boundaries between permissible criticism and defamatory statements, affirming that the published article did not cross the line into defamation.

Orders