Hanson v Burston

In the appeal of Burston v Hanson, the respondent, Pauline Lee Hanson, sought to overturn the primary judge's decision that certain defamatory imputations made during an oral interview broadcast on national television were not substantially true. The appeal specifically focused on two imputations: the fourth, which alleged that the respondent sexually abused a female staffer in his parliamentary office, and the sixth, which alleged that the respondent physically assaulted someone without provocation. The appeal was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge erred in finding that the fourth and sixth imputations were carried and whether the primary judge erred in finding that the substantial truth of the fourth and sixth imputations had not been proven. The respondent argued that the primary judge had not correctly characterised the phrase "sexual abuse" and had not given it its ordinary meaning. The respondent also argued that the primary judge had failed to consider the egregious nature of the respondent's conduct, its repetitiveness, and the power imbalance that existed.

The court found that the primary judge had correctly characterised the phrase "sexual abuse" and had given it its ordinary meaning. The court also found that the primary judge had given due recognition to the egregious nature of the respondent's conduct, its repetitiveness, and the power imbalance which existed. However, the court found that the primary judge had erred in finding that the fourth and sixth imputations were not substantially true. The court found that the substantial truth of the fourth imputation had been proven, but the sixth imputation was not carried. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the primary judgment was set aside. The court ordered that judgment be entered for the respondent and that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the proceedings and this appeal.