S, DJ v Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd - [2008] SASC 229

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Full Court: Permission to Appeal in Private)
S, DJ v CHANNEL SEVEN ADELAIDE PTY LTD
[2008] SASC 229
Judgment of The Full Court
(The Honourable Justice Duggan, The Honourable Justice Nyland and The Honourable Justice Vanstone)
19 August 2008
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - WHEN APPEAL LIES - BY LEAVE OF COURT - GENERALLY
Application for permission to appeal in private. Permission to appeal refused.
Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Act 1998 (SA); Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth), s 63; Supreme Court Rules 2006 r 282(2), referred to.
S, DJ v Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd [2008] SASC 60; Channel Seven Pty Ltd v S, DJ (2007) 248 LSJS 75; S, DJ v Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd & Anor [2008] SASC 108, discussed.

S, DJ v CHANNEL SEVEN ADELAIDE PTY LTD
[2008] SASC 229
Full Court: Duggan, Nyland and Vanstone JJ

THE COURT: The plaintiff seeks permission to appeal against orders of a judge of this court made on 16 May 2008, allowing the first defendant (Channel 7) to amend its defence in terms of a document entitled “Third Further Amended Defence”.
The plaintiff’s claim is for damages for defamation. The circumstances of the alleged defamation and the history of this litigation are summarised in the most recent Full Court decision in the matter: S, DJ v Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd [2008] SASC 60.
The action arises out of a television broadcast by Channel 7 on 14 and 15 May 2004, being a promotion for a Today Tonight programme then scheduled to go to air the following week. The promotion was in the following terms:
On Today Tonight South Australian federal MP, her boyfriend and the business trip – disgusted that taxpayer funds have been used – the paper trail and the whistleblower – he is a suspect in a murder case.
The promotion was accompanied by pictures of a member of the House of Representatives, Ms Draper, the plaintiff and of Ms Corinna Marr, a young woman who was, in July 1997, the victim of an unsolved murder.
Paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claim reads:
7.     The natural and ordinary meaning of the promotion is:
(a)     the plaintiff is a suspect in a murder case arising from the death of Corinna Marr, and
(b)     there are grounds to so suspect him, which are reasonable.
In its defence Channel 7 included a plea of justification. In support of it, the defendant pleaded a number of assertions about police activities in the course of the investigation of the murder, including statements taken and interviews conducted and as to suspicions held by police; and further, as to a ruling made in the Adelaide Magistrates Court in the course of an application under the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Act 1998 to the effect that the plaintiff was reasonably suspected of involvement in the murder. The particulars of that plea were struck out…

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 S, DJ v Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: S, DJ v Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd [2008] SASC 229
Case: [2008] SASC 229
Decision Date: 19 August 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of S, DJ v Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd, the dispute originated in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The plaintiff, DJ S, sought damages against the defendant, Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd, for defamation. The case was primarily concerned with whether the media company had defamed the plaintiff through a broadcast and, if so, the appropriate quantum of damages. The appeal before the court was regarding the procedural aspects of the case, specifically the grant of leave for an appeal and the potential for a new trial.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's appeal was eligible for leave and, if so, what the implications would be for the potential new trial. The court needed to consider the grounds upon which the plaintiff sought leave to appeal and determine if they met the stringent criteria for such leave in South Australian jurisprudence. Furthermore, the court had to weigh whether the grounds for appeal were sufficient to warrant a re-examination of the facts and potentially a new trial.

The court deliberated on the established principles governing the grant of leave for an appeal in South Australia. It noted that leave is not freely granted but reserved for cases where there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice or some significant procedural error. The court examined the arguments presented by both parties and considered the evidence and submissions made during the original trial. After careful consideration, the court concluded that the appeal was not meritorious and did not meet the threshold for leave. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the lower court was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed, and no leave was granted for an appeal. Additionally, the court confirmed that there would be no new trial. This decision reinforced the importance of the stringent criteria for leave to appeal and underscored the principle that appeals should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances.

Orders