Dojas v TCN Channel Nine Pty Limited

This case concerned an appeal from a defamation action brought by the plaintiff, Dojas, against TCN Channel Nine Pty Limited. The dispute centred on whether a televised image of the plaintiff was of such a nature that persons acquainted with him could reasonably believe it depicted him. The jury had answered this question in the negative. Leave to appeal was sought on grounds including the appropriateness of the identification question and the clarity of the judge's directions to the jury.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge's directions on the issue of identification were legally erroneous or confusing. Specifically, the court considered whether the jury's finding that the televised image did not reasonably identify the plaintiff was perverse, and whether the directions given adequately explained the legal test for identification in the context of a visual image. The court also had to consider the appropriate standard for identification, particularly concerning the degree of acquaintance required for a person to reasonably identify the plaintiff from a visual depiction.

The court found no error of law in the directions given. It reasoned that even if the jury accepted the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses that they believed the person depicted was the plaintiff for specific reasons, this did not necessarily mean the broadcast material was adequate for persons acquainted with the plaintiff to reasonably form that belief. The jury could have concluded that the witnesses, while honest, had jumped to a conclusion based on insufficient material. The court also noted that it would not be perverse for the jury to reach such a view, or to disbelieve the witnesses. Regarding the identification test, the court held that if a visual image can be reasonably identified as being of the plaintiff by even a few people who know the plaintiff extremely well, and publication was made to at least one such person, this would be sufficient identification for the purposes of defamation law.

Leave to appeal was refused with costs.