JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL
CITATION: LAZOS -v- WEST AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD [No 2] [2024] WASC 238
CORAM: TOTTLE J
HEARD: 29, 30, 31 JANUARY 2024
DELIVERED : 5 JULY 2024
FILE NO/S: CIV 1404 of 2020
BETWEEN: PETROS LAZOS
Plaintiff
AND
WEST AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD
Defendant
Catchwords:
Defamation - Newspaper article - Imputation - Defamatory meaning conveyed by article - Article conveyed the plaintiff was dishonest in his conduct as a government official
Defamation - Defences - Fair summary of public documents and fair report of proceedings of public concern - Whether fairness to be assessed by reference to the entire matter published or the defamatory aspects only - 'Matter' is understood as the matter to the extent to which it gives rise to defamatory imputations
Defamation - Defence - Fair summary of public documents - Consideration of meaning of 'public document' - Email from government spokesperson to journalist not a public document
Defamation - Defence - Fair summary of public document - Matter not a summary of a public document where matter does not bear the character of a summary of a public document
Defamation - Defence - Fair summary of public document - Fairness compromised by the inclusion of other material
Defamation - Defence - Fair report of proceedings of public concern – Where matter does not bear the character of a report of proceedings - Where summary of multiple proceedings taken in combination compromises fairness
Defamation - Defence - Common law qualified privilege - Mass media publication - No reciprocity of duty and interest
Defamation - Defence - Lange qualified privilege - Reasonableness of conduct - Where conduct in publishing the matter was unreasonable
Defamation - Defence - Statutory qualified privilege - Reasonableness of conduct - Where conduct in publishing the matter was unreasonable
Defamation - Damages - Damage to reputation presumed - Hurt and distress - Where hurt and distress caused to family members compounds hurt and distress felt personally
Defamation - Damages - Aggravated damages - Damage aggravated by continuation of publication of article to time of trial
Legislation:
Defamation Act 2005 (SA)
Defamation Act 2005 (Vic)
Defamation Act 2005 (WA)
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)
Result:
Judgment for the plaintiff
Representation:
Counsel:
| Plaintiff | : | Mr M L Bennett & Dr M Douglas |
| Defendant | : | Mr R Anderson KC & Mr P McCarthy |
Solicitors:
| Plaintiff | : | Bennett |
| Defendant | : | Steedman Stagg |
Cases referred to in decision:
Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd [1998] HCA 37
Aktas v Westpac Banking Corporation Ltd [2009] NSWCA 9
Anderson v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (1964) 64 SR (NSW) 376
Andrews v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1980) 2 NSWLR 225
Bazzi v Dutton [2022] FCAFC 84; (2022) 289 FCR 1
Bristow v Adams [2012] NSWCA 166
Burchett v Kane [1980] 2 NSWLR 266
Campbell v Associated Newspapers Ltd (1948) 48 SR (NSW) 301
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44
Continue reading Lazos v West Australian Newspapers Ltd [No 2]
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Lazos v West Australian Newspapers Ltd [No 2] [2024] WASC 238
- Case
- [2024] WASC 238
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court began by examining the meaning conveyed by the article, considering the emphasis, presentation, context, irony, sneers, and other rhetorical devices. It noted that the article conveyed that Mr. Lazos was dishonest in his conduct as a government official. The court then assessed the fairness of the report under the fair summary of public documents defence, concluding that the email from a government spokesperson to a journalist was not a public document, and thus, the report was not a fair summary of a public document. Furthermore, the court found that the inclusion of other material compromised the fairness of the report. Regarding the fair report of proceedings of public concern defence, the court found that the report did not bear the character of a report of proceedings and that the summary of multiple proceedings taken in combination compromised fairness. The court also considered the common law and Lange qualified privileges, finding that the defendant's conduct in publishing the matter was unreasonable. Finally, the court addressed the issue of damages, presuming damage to reputation and considering the hurt and distress caused to Mr. Lazos and his family.
The court concluded that the defendant's article was defamatory and that the defences of fair summary of public documents, fair report of proceedings of public concern, and qualified privileges did not apply. The plaintiff was awarded damages for the defamation. The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff $150,000 in general damages, $50,000 in aggravated damages, and $20,000 in costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Emphasis, presentation, context, irony, sneers and other rhetorical devices can reinforce or negate a meaning that the same words said or read in isolation of the circumstances of their communication would have conveyed.[65] [65] Chau v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 3) [2021] FCA 44; 386 ALR 36 [39] (Rares J). Several principles have been developed where the matter complained of includes statements that a person has been charged with a criminal offence. Those principles were also considered by Chaney J in Rayney and, relevantly, are as follows:(a)A report which does no more than state that a person has been arrested and has been charged with a criminal offence is incapable of bearing the imputation that he is guilty or probably guilty of that offence.[66](b)The ordinary reasonable reader is mindful of the principle that a person charged with a crime is presumed innocent until it is proved that he is guilty. Although they know that many persons charged with a criminal offence are ultimately convicted, they are also aware that guilt or innocence is a question to be determined by a court, generally by a jury, and that not infrequently the person charged is acquitted.[67](c)Statements concerning police investigations into a plaintiff commonly give rise to three possible defamatory meanings namely that the plaintiff is guilty, that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the plaintiff is guilty, or that there are grounds for investigating whether the plaintiff is guilty.[68][66] Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Harrison [1982] HCA 50; (1982) 149 CLR 293, 300 - 301.[67] Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Harrison (300 – 301).[68] Sands v State of South Australia [2015] SASCFC 36; (2015) 122 SASR 195 [238]. The decisions of the High Court in Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Harrison,[69] and Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd,[70] illustrate the analysis to be undertaken when it is contended that newspaper reports either impute or are capable of imputing guilt of a criminal offence. [69] Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Harrison.[70] Favell v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd. In Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Harrison, Mason J (as his Honour then was) (with whom Wilson J agreed, and Gibbs CJ and Brennan J agreed subject to presently immaterial reservations) described the report on which the plaintiff sued as follows:[71][71] Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Harrison (295 - 296).The report was published on the first and second pages of the "Daily Mirror" newspaper on 14 August 1980. On the front page, in headlines two inches high, the article says:BALDWIN: 4 ARRESTS'and, in smaller type: '3 MEN, WOMAN HELD IN RAIDS'. The headline on the second page is: 'BALDWIN - 4 ARRESTED' and, in smaller type:'Police raid city homes.' On each of the two pages there is a photograph of the plaintiff (with part of his face blocked out) as one of the three men arrested. The article states that the arrests were made 'in dawn raids today over the bashing of State Labour M. P. Peter Baldwin'. Mr. Baldwin is said to have been 'viciously bashed by at least two men' and to have suffered 'shocking facial injuries and a fractured skull and requiring more than 50 stitches in his wounds' necessitating 'almost two weeks in hospital'. The article reminds its readers that Mr. Baldwin had earlier made allegations of vote-rigging and of the infiltration of organized crime into inner-City Labor Party branches, and implies that the attack upon him was in reprisal for those allegations. The arrests are said to have followed a month of 'intensive investigation by a special squad of detectives' who had 'worked around the clock to fulfil a directive from the Deputy Premier, Mr. Ferguson, that the culprits be found'. The article says that a fourth man may be arrested and that all five are expected to appear in Court later that day, to be charged with 'conspiracy and fraud'. The article states that tight security will surround the Court when they so appear.The two imputations at issue are in the following terms:(i) That the plaintiff was directly or indirectly involved in the vicious bashing of Mr. Peter Baldwin on the night of 17th July 1980 whereby Mr. Baldwin suffered shocking facial injuries and a fractured skull, required treatment consisting of more than fifty stitches in his wounds and spent almost two weeks in hospital; (ii) That the plaintiff was guilty of a criminal offence in connection with the said bashing.