Fleming v Advertiser-News Weekend Publishing Company Pty Ltd and Advertiser Newspapers Pty Ltd

The plaintiff, John Fleming, an Anglican priest, has initiated defamation proceedings against the defendants, the Advertiser-News Weekend Publishing Company Pty Ltd and the Advertiser Newspapers Pty Ltd. Fleming alleges that the defendants published defamatory statements about him in "The Sunday Mail" and on their website, suggesting that he engaged in unlawful sexual activities with minors, specifically Jane and Jenny, and a male, Richard. The defendants deny the allegations and alternatively claim justification and contextual truth as defences. The case before the court revolves around the interpretation of the defamatory imputations, specifically whether the phrase "unlawful sexual intercourse" in Fleming's pleadings includes only penile/vaginal intercourse. The court also had to determine if the defendants could rely on allegations of oral sexual intercourse in their justification plea, whether the court correctly refused to strike out the "Polly Peck" pleadings, and if the correct approach was applied to the plaintiff’s request to strike out the defendants' pleadings of contextual truth.

The legal issues the court needed to address were the scope of the imputations pleaded by Fleming, the applicability of justification and contextual truth as defences, and procedural matters regarding the pleadings. Specifically, the court examined whether the imputations pleaded by Fleming included only penile/vaginal intercourse or if it could also encompass other forms of sexual activity. Additionally, the court had to decide if the defendants' plea of justification could incorporate allegations of oral sexual intercourse. Furthermore, the court needed to determine if the trial judge erred in not striking out the "Polly Peck" pleadings and if the appropriate procedural approach was taken in dealing with Fleming's application to strike out the defendants' contextual truth plea.

The court found that the phrase "unlawful sexual intercourse" in Fleming's pleadings was limited to penile/vaginal intercourse, and therefore, the defendants' plea of justification could not incorporate allegations of oral sexual intercourse. The court held that the defendants' plea of contextual truth was not properly pleaded and should have been struck out. The court also found that the trial judge did not err in refusing to strike out the "Polly Peck" pleadings, as they were relevant to the context in which the publications appeared. Finally, the court determined that the trial judge did not err in his approach to Fleming's application to strike out the contextual truth plea, as the pleadings were not properly framed.

The court ordered that the defendants' plea of justification be limited to penile/vaginal intercourse and that the plea of contextual truth be struck out. The "Polly Peck" pleadings were allowed to stand, and the trial judge's approach to the striking out of the contextual truth plea was upheld. These findings and orders were made in the context of the Defamation Act 2005 (SA), which applies to these proceedings.