Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation - [1996] HCATrans 303

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S109 of 1996

B e t w e e n -
DAVID RUSSELL LANGE
Applicant
and
AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

Respondent

Directions hearing

BRENNAN CJ

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 1 OCTOBER 1996, AT 11.06 AM

MR G.O’L. REYNOLDS: May it please the Court, in that matter I appear for the plaintiff. (instructed by Phillips Fox)

MR J.J. SPIGELMAN, QC: If your Honour pleases, I appear with MR S.J. GAGELER, for the defendant. (instructed by J. Walker, Solicitor for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

MR G. GRIFFITH, QC, Solicitor-General for the Commonwealth: If your Honour please, I appear with my learned friend, MS N.F. MORRIS, for the Attorney-General for the Commonwealth intervening in the same interests as in the Levy matter. (instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor)

MR D. GRAHAM, QC, Solicitor-General for the State of Victoria: If your Honour pleases, I appear on behalf of the Attorney-General for the State of Victoria intervening in support of the plaintiff in this matter. (instructed by R.C. Beazley, the Victorian Government Solicitor)

MR L.S. KATZ, SC: If your Honour pleases, as a matter of courtesy, I announce that I represent the Attorney-General for New South Wales who has not made any decision as to whether or not to intervene in the matter. (instructed by the Crown Solicitor for New South Wales)

HIS HONOUR: We can almost see you then, Mr Katz.

MR D.F. JACKSON, QC: If your Honour pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MR M.A. DREYFUS, for the same interests for which I appeared earlier. (instructed by Freehill Hollingdale & Page)

HIS HONOUR: Yes. What other parties will be seeking leave to intervene or to appear amicus?

MR J.R. SACKAR, QC: If the Court pleases, we will be seeking, that is, Seven Network Limited, will be seeking leave to intervene. (instructed by Clayton Utz)

HIS HONOUR: On the same basis?

MR SACKAR: On the same basis, yes.

MR B.R. McCLINTOCK: Your Honour, we are, I hate to say it, yet to decide whether we will seek leave to intervene in Lange. (instructed by Arthur Robinson & Hedderwicks together with Gallagher De Reszke)

HIS HONOUR: Yes, very well. The first matter to consider is whether there should be a case stated.

MR REYNOLDS: Your Honour, I can indicate this much, that so far as it is relevant, the stated case which is the annexure to the summons which we have filed, has been agreed to between the parties subject only to one matter which I will raise in a moment. In paragraph 5, there is reference to a transcript of the spoken words. We have an agreed transcript - and I can give your Honour a copy of that if that is convenient?

HIS HONOUR: You have not agreed?

MR REYNOLDS: We have agreed a written…

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.

Continue reading Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Details

AGLC: Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [1996] HCATrans 303
Case: [1996] HCATrans 303
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation*, the High Court of Australia considered a defamation action brought by Mr. Lange against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). The dispute arose from a television broadcast by the ABC which Mr. Lange alleged defamed him.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution afforded a defence to the ABC in this defamation proceeding. Specifically, the Court had to determine the scope and nature of this implied freedom and how it operated in the context of defamation law, particularly concerning statements made about politicians.

The High Court held that the implied freedom of political communication is not absolute and can be limited by laws that are reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate purpose in a constitutional democracy. In this instance, the Court found that the common law of defamation, as it stood, did not adequately accommodate the implied freedom. The Court reformulated the common law defence of qualified privilege to ensure it was consistent with the constitutional implication, establishing that a defendant would not be liable for defamatory statements made about a politician if the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe the imputation was true, even if that belief was mistaken, provided the publication was for the purpose of conveying information or opinion on matters of political, economic or social interest. The Court clarified that the focus should be on the reasonableness of the defendant's belief in the truth of the imputation, rather than the reasonableness of the publication itself.

Orders