Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Goldsworthy

Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd (the appellant) appealed to the High Court of Australia from a judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appeal concerned a defamation action brought by Mr Goldsworthy (the respondent) against Radio 2UE and its commentator, Mr Michael Smith, arising from statements made on air concerning Mr Goldsworthy's alleged involvement in a criminal conspiracy. The Supreme Court had found in favour of Mr Goldsworthy, awarding him damages.

The High Court was required to determine whether the defence of qualified privilege was available to the appellant in respect of the defamatory statements. Specifically, the court considered whether the occasion of the broadcast was one to which qualified privilege attached, and if so, whether the respondent had established that the appellant had acted with malice, thereby defeating the defence. The central question was whether the statements were made in the discharge of a duty or the protection of an interest, and if so, whether the appellant had abused that privilege.

The High Court, in a joint judgment by Gleeson CJ and Kirby J, held that the defence of qualified privilege was not available. Their Honours found that while the occasion of a radio broadcast concerning matters of public interest might, in some circumstances, attract qualified privilege, the specific statements made by Mr Smith were not made in the discharge of any legal, social, or moral duty, nor in the protection of any legitimate interest. The court emphasised that the privilege does not extend to gratuitous or sensationalised allegations made without a proper basis or for improper motives. The statements were found to be published with a reckless disregard for their truth or falsity, which constituted malice.

The appeal was dismissed.