Daily Examiner Pty Ltd v Mundine & Anor; Brown v Mundine & Anor

The High Court of Australia considered appeals in two related matters, *Daily Examiner Pty Ltd v Mundine & Anor* and *Brown v Mundine & Anor*. The central dispute concerned the publication of articles by the Daily Examiner Pty Ltd and Mr. Brown concerning Mr. Mundine, a prominent Indigenous Australian and former professional boxer. Mr. Mundine alleged that the publications were defamatory and sought damages.

The High Court was required to determine whether the publications were defamatory of Mr. Mundine. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the articles conveyed imputations that Mr. Mundine had engaged in criminal conduct, namely the sexual assault of a woman, and whether these imputations were established as true by the defendants. The Court also had to assess whether the defence of honest and reasonable belief, as provided by the relevant defamation legislation, was available to the publishers.

The Court found that the articles, when read as a whole, did not convey the imputation that Mr. Mundine had committed sexual assault. Instead, the publications referred to allegations made by a woman, but did not assert the truth of those allegations. Consequently, the imputation of criminal conduct was not established. The Court further held that the defence of honest and reasonable belief was not applicable because the defamatory imputation had not been proven to have been published. The appeals were therefore allowed.