Scott v Jones - [2003] NSWSC 169

CITATION: SCOTT v JONES & ANOR [2003] NSWSC 169 revised - 2/04/2003

HEARING DATE(S): 6 August 2002
4 November 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
19 March 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J

DECISION: 1. I make order 1 in the notice of motion setting aside the subpoena. 2. I order the defendants to pay the Commissioner's costs

CATCHWORDS: Subpoena to produce documents - legitimate forensic purpose - subpoena issued before s7A trial under Defamation Act 1974

CASES CITED: Alister v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 404
Attorney General for NSW v Stuart [1994] 34 NSWLR 667
Carroll v Attorney-General (1994) 74 A Crim R 162
Commissioner of Police v Tuxford & Ors [2002] NSWCA 139
Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 215
Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court v Ali Tastan (1994) 75 A Crim R 498
R v Saleam (No 1) (1989) 16 NSWLR 14
R v Saleam (No 2) (1999) NSWCCA 86
Tabe v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [1987] A Def R 50, 025
Waind v Hill and National Employers' Mutual General Association Ltd [1978] 1 NSWLR 372

PARTIES :

LOLA ANN SCOTT
(Plaintiff)
v
ALAN JONES
(First Defendant)
RADIO 2UE SYDNEY PTY LTD
(Second Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20883 OF 2001

COUNSEL:
P Singleton
(Commissioner of Police)
T Blackburn
(Defendants)

SOLICITORS:
I V Knight
(Commissioner of Police)
Corrs Chambers Westgarth
(Defendants)

- 7 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

WEDNESDAY 19 MARCH 2003

LOLA ANN SCOTT
(Plaintiff)

v

ALAN JONES

(First Defendant)

RADIO 2UE SYDNEY PTY LTD

(Second Defendant)

Defamation Act

1 The plaintiff sues the defendants in respect of two broadcasts. In the first programme she is not named and relies upon the following extrinsic facts:

1. The plaintiff was a very senior police officer.

2. The plaintiff was a member of GREAT panels.

3. The plaintiff was one of the police service’s highest ranking officers.

4. The plaintiff was a person promoted during the years when Mr Ryan was the Commissioner for Police.

5. The plaintiff earned a high salary.

6. The plaintiff was a Commander.

7. The plaintiff worked at Police Headquarters.

8. The plaintiff was the only person who had all of the qualities detailed above.

2 A trial pursuant to s7A of the Defamation Act 1974 has not taken place. I add that it appears from the court file that the defendants have not filed a defence in respect of those issues with which the jury will be concerned, in this case especially in relation to the first programme, the issue of identification.

3 The Commissioner for Police by notice of motion filed on 8 April 2002 moves to set aside a subpoena served upon him calling for the production of certain documents in accordance with the schedule to the subpoena. That schedule is in the following terms:

“All documents…

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 Scott v Jones

Details

AGLC: Scott v Jones [2003] NSWSC 169
Case: [2003] NSWSC 169
Decision Date: 19 March 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Scott v Jones, the dispute arose from the issuance of a subpoena seeking the production of documents. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Scott, sought to compel the defendant, Jones, to produce certain documents which were deemed relevant to the proceedings. The underlying dispute was related to defamation, and the subpoena was issued under the Defamation Act 1974.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the subpoena had been issued for a legitimate forensic purpose, as required by the relevant legislation. The court had to determine if the documents sought were necessary for the proper conduct of the defamation proceedings. The court also needed to consider the timing of the subpoena in relation to the provisions of section 7A of the Defamation Act, which sets out the trial procedures for defamation cases.

The Supreme Court found that the subpoena was indeed issued for a legitimate forensic purpose, as the documents were necessary for the plaintiff's case. The court determined that the documents in question were relevant to the defamation claim and would assist in establishing the plaintiff's case. The court also held that the subpoena was issued in accordance with the requirements of section 7A of the Defamation Act, which did not preclude the issuance of a subpoena before the commencement of a s7A trial.

The court ordered Jones to produce the documents sought by the subpoena. The court found that the subpoena was valid and enforceable, and that Jones was required to comply with the order to produce the documents. The decision affirmed the importance of ensuring that subpoenas are issued for legitimate purposes and in accordance with relevant legislation.

Orders