Stokes v Ragless

Case [2017] SASC 159

Supreme Court of South Australia

(Civil)

STOKES v RAGLESS

[2017] SASC 159

Judgment of The Honourable Justice Bampton

10 November 2017

DEFAMATION - PUBLICATION - GENERALLY - INTERNET PUBLICATIONS

DEFAMATION - STATEMENTS AMOUNTING TO DEFAMATION - PARTICULAR STATEMENTS - IMPUTATION - CRIMINAL

DEFAMATION - PRIVILEGE - QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE

DEFAMATION - PRIVILEGE - QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE - REBUTTAL OF PRIVILEGE BY MALICE

DEFAMATION - JUSTIFICATION - TRUTH

DEFAMATION - INJUNCTIONS

Plaintiff and defendant were both members of the Southern Branch of the South Australian Field & Game Association Inc – plaintiff alleged that the defendant defamed him by way of 132 publications between 30 October 2012 and 24 June 2014 comprising 116 separate statements on a website created and maintained by the defendant, 15 emails and via a Facebook page – no dispute that the defendant published the matters complained of and that they identified the plaintiff – defendant denied the publications conveyed the imputations alleged and pleaded that, if they did arise, he was justified in publishing the defamatory matters at common law and under s 23 of the Defamation Act or, in the alternative, they were published on privileged occasions at common law and under s 28 of the Defamation Act – plaintiff alleged the claims of qualified privilege were defeated by malice – plaintiff claims damages, aggravated damages and a permanent injunction.

Held:

1.  The defendant published the matters complained of.

2.  The matters complained of identified the plaintiff.

3.  The publications conveyed the imputations alleged and were defamatory of the plaintiff.

4.  The defendant failed to prove the truth of the defamatory matters.

5.  The defendant failed to prove the defamatory matters were published on occasions of qualified privilege.

6.  The plaintiff is entitled to general damages in the sum of $70,000 and aggravated damages in the sum of $20,000.

7.  The plaintiff is entitled the permanent injunction sought.

Defamation Act 2005 (SA) s 6, s 8, s 28, s 32, s 36; Firearms Act 1977 (SA) s 20, s 21; Tobacco Products (Licensing) Act 1986 (SA); Associations Incorporation Act 1985 (SA) s 61; Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) r 225, r 261; Supreme Court Civil Supplementary Rules 2014 (SA) r 208, referred to.
Duffy v Google Inc (2015) 125 SASR 437, applied.
Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575; Lesses v Maras (No 2) [2017] SASCFC 137; Duffy v Google Inc (No 2) [2015] SASC 206; Douglas v McLernon (No 4) [2016] WASC 320; Sims v Jooste (No 2) [2016] WASCA 83; Carson v John Fairfax and Sons Limited (1993) 178 CLR 44; John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Kelly (1987) 8 NSWLR 131; Reader's Digest Services Pty Ltd v Lamb (1982) 150 CLR 500; Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158; Herald and Weekly Times Ltd v McGregor (1928) 41 CLR 254; Uren v John Fairfax and Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118; Ha…

Continue reading Stokes v Ragless

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Stokes v Ragless [2017] SASC 159
Case
[2017] SASC 159
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stokes v Ragless involved the plaintiff, Mr Stokes, who was a member of the Southern Branch of the South Australian Field & Game Association Inc, bringing an action against the defendant, Mr Ragless, who was also a member of the Association. Mr Stokes claimed that Mr Ragless defamed him through numerous publications on a website, emails, and a Facebook page. Mr Ragless denied the allegations, claiming the statements were either privileged or true. Mr Stokes sought damages, aggravated damages, and a permanent injunction.

The primary legal issues were whether the publications were defamatory, if they were privileged, and if not, whether they were justified or true. The court considered whether Mr Ragless' claims of qualified privilege were negated by malice. Mr Ragless argued that the statements were either privileged or true, while Mr Stokes contended that the imputations were defamatory and not protected by any privilege.

The court found that Mr Ragless' conduct justified the grant of a permanent injunction due to the extensive nature of the defamatory publications and their impact on Mr Stokes. The court detailed the harm caused by the publications, including hurt, distress, and interference with Mr Stokes' enjoyment of life and retirement. The court held that the defamatory matters were published with malice, defeating any claim of qualified privilege. The court found that the publications were not justified or true. The court awarded damages, aggravated damages, and a permanent injunction against Mr Ragless.

The court ordered that Mr Ragless pay damages to Mr Stokes for the harm caused by the defamatory publications, along with aggravated damages for the manner in which they were published. The permanent injunction restrained Mr Ragless from publishing any further defamatory statements about Mr Stokes. The injunction was designed to prevent ongoing harm and to protect Mr Stokes from further defamation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Mr Ragless gave evidence and called:·Timothy Roehl, an electrician who has known Mr Ragless for 21 years and joined the Southern Branch in 2012. They met through work and they have maintained a friendship since that time. Mr Roehl was a member of SAFGA but resigned his membership when Mr Ragless left the Southern Branch as he is a social shooter and Mr Ragless was his only social connection at Southern Branch. ·David Taylor, a friend of Mr Ragless since 1974. Mr Taylor joined Mr Ragless as a partner in Mr Ragless’ business, Selgar Air-conditioning in 1976 until 1988. They remain friends and often shot together. Mr Taylor has never been a member of SAFGA. ·Phillip Kemp, who has known Mr Ragless for about four years.·Hayley Smith, his daughter.·Wayne Ragless, his son.·Nicholas Carter, Assistant Secretary and Chairman of the Constitution Review Subcommittee of SAFGA in 2013.·James Wilson, who had worked with Mr Ragless since the 1980s.Background The Southern Branch was governed by a committee, elected at an AGM each year.[6] SAFGA was also governed by a committee, elected at its AGM each year.[7] Delegates from various branches or affiliate clubs were entitled to attend SAFGA State Council meetings.[8] Other South Australian branches under SAFGA include Central, Loxton, Renmark-Berri, and South East.[6] T140.[7] T139.[8] T139.Mr Ragless Mr Ragless was introduced to SAFGA by a neighbour at his family’s shack in Point Turton and initially was involved as a sponsor. He found clay shooting to be addictive and from 1989 he shot close to once a week at different branches around the State. He became friends with Mr Dawes when he joined the Southern Branch in 2004. He remembers meeting Mr Perry at about the same time and Mr Stokes in 2010. His involvement with SAFGA became a significant part of his life. His wife, Leah, was involved in a social capacity. He was involved at a committee level in the late 1990s and started a newsletter. Mr Perry described him as loud, brash, funny, a pretty good shot, and pretty entertaining. From about 2004, Mr Ragless and Mr Dawes developed a close friendship. Mr Ragless was aged 69 at the time of trial. He “got to intermediate standard” at school before starting an electrical apprenticeship. He built up an air conditioning business, Selgar Air Conditioning, and a wire products business and owned factory premises at Mile End and Seaford. In 2000, he suffered a fall which caused him to look at life differently and to consider retirement. Up until 2008, Mr Ragless was in semi‑retirement attempting to wind down his business, but requests for his services did not cease. As he detailed in his letter published in the Field and Game Federation of Australia Inc (now Sporting Clays Australia) (“FGFA”) newsletter in September 2012,[9] he began to suffer stress and lack of sleep caused by work related issues. He recalled working on a particular job, being back on the tools working with Mr Dawes and not being able to sleep. He described an occasion when Mr Dawes and Mr John Monaghan were driving him down to a shoot at Keith and he slept all the way. They had arranged to go to Renmark the following June long weekend but when Mr Dawes arrived at his home to pick him up he told him that he could not go and asked him to take the key to his safe where he kept his firearms. Mr Ragless said that he did not know what was happening to him. He said that was the start of his nervous breakdown. He was taking sleeping tablets at this time but in the early hours of 30 June 2008 he awoke in such a state that his wife and his brother Lester decided to ring an ambulance. He was taken to Adaire Clinic where he stayed until 30 July 2008 under the care of Dr Jolly.[9] Exhibit P2.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

BAMPTON J
Mr Ragless’ behaviour throughout this sorry saga justifies the grant of a permanent injunction.Conclusion In arriving at an award of damages, I take into account:·the number and nature of defamatory publications;·the fact that there was direct publication in South Australia and it has been circulated amongst the sporting shooting community;·the fact that the Website was followed and discussed within the sporting shooting community and therefore subject to the grapevine effect in South Australia;·the Website being read by some people outside of the sporting shooting community, most likely located in South Australia;·the extended period during which the publications occurred;·the seriousness of the imputations, particularly those in the lead up to the February 2014 AGM;·the fact that the publications caused some persons to question whether certain of the imputations were true;·the hurt and distress caused to Mr Stokes;·the effect on Mr Stokes’ ability to enjoy his life and his retirement;·Mr Stokes’ sensitivity to discussing the events around the attack on him in 1988;·Mr Stokes’ prominence and reputation in the sporting shooting community as well as his business reputation;·the need for vindication in respect of all publications; and·the fact that Mr Ragless has failed to apologise. I accept that:1The defamatory matters caused Mr Stokes hurt and distress, that he was originally really annoyed and frustrated and then subsequently hurt by the publications.2Mr Stokes did not want any more media attention and that he was not happy to have his name given to the authorities. 3Mr Stokes’ concerns about Mr Ragless’ attempts to get media attention were because he was aware that his Cartridge World involvement could quite easily become of interest to the media. 4Mr Ragless’ references on the Website to Mr Stokes being a cheat, a liar and corrupt made him feel sick to his stomach about it.5When Mr Stokes read the 2 May update, which included the words “this is just the beginning and it will be a long game”, his heart went to his stomach and he had had enough of it and was unsure how to handle the situation. 6Mr Stokes had a sinking feeling that it was never going to end and the reference to him and other committee members acting unlawfully made him feel bad.7When Mr Stokes saw the reference in the 17 May update to him having a questionable past, he felt frustrated and gutted and he knew it was another issue that he would be questioned about. He was angry and disgusted that he was questioned about it by people at the Southern Branch.8In May 2013, when Mr Perry approached the then SAFGA President, and there was a meeting at the Southern Branch with Mr Lowe, Mr Pash and Mr Carter, Mr Stokes understood the depth of the commitment that some of these people had in supporting Mr Ragless’ story and that really, really worried him.[225][225] T388-389.9Ultimately, in late 2013, Mr Stokes had had enough and could see that Mr Ragless had no intention of stopping and that he had to go ahead and do something.10When Mr Stokes saw the 30 January update he had a sense of helplessness because he was already doing what he could by pursuing these proceedings, but Mr Ragless had not stopped. 11People supporting Mr Ragless suggested that Mr Stokes or the Southern Branch were corrupt, and often referred to them as “you bastards at Southern” and said things like “leave him alone”.[226][226] T224-227.12Mr Stokes was angry when he saw the 31 January update and he just wanted Mr Ragless to stop. Mr Ragless had written on the Website that there were 50 to 100 people looking at the site every day, which was very disheartening for Mr Stokes who knew that “there was just going to be more rubbish floating about, more queries, more questions, more intimidation, more of everything”.[227][227] T227-228.13Mr Stokes felt gutted at being referred to as a corrupt member of the Southern Branch in the 10 February update. 14Mr Stokes had a reputation to be proud of and his biggest worry was that he was not going to be believed.[228][228] T182.15Mr Stokes eventually stopped attending a lot of shoots for a two year period outside the Southern Branch as he got sick of the questioning and feeling on the outer because of it.[229] [229] T214.16Mr Stokes was subject to animosity from supporters of Mr Ragless, particularly Mr Ragless’ supporters in the Riverland and Central branches. 17Some of those persons raised the Website with Mr Stokes in a negative way, because they felt that Mr Stokes had damaged Mr Ragless by taking his licence away, with at least five of them raising with him that he had taken Mr Ragless’ licence away.[230][230] T191.18Mr Stokes went back to events at other clubs prior to the trial because he felt obliged to as the SAFGA President.[231] 19Mr Stokes felt apprehensive before he returned to other clubs because he was unsure about how he would be received and that he was pleasantly surprised when he did attend. 20Over time, the vast majority of people who originally supported Mr Ragless have changed sides and Mr Stokes was encouraged to run and was elected President of SAFGA.21The constant references to being prosecuted and charged with criminal offences made Mr Stokes very uncomfortable. He got to the end of his tether with the threat of a private prosecution by Mr Ragless. 22When statements were on the Website despite the interim injunctive orders, Mr Stokes was frustrated and knew that unless he took positive action to bring it back to court he was going to have to take it on the chin.23Mr Stokes’ heart sank when he saw the statement that Mr Ragless was looking for lawyers to be involved in “some sort of profit share arrangement in a lucrative deformation and compensation case”.[232]24Mr Stokes found it difficult to sleep, drinking a bottle of wine a night to get to sleep. In early 2015, a doctor told that him that his liver enzymes were up and he needed to do something about it. He stopped drinking for 15 months, and fell off the wagon in the five weeks’ lead up to trial. He gave evidence that he had not had a drink for the previous five to six weeks.25It affected Mr Stokes’ home life and restricted his ability to travel and enjoy life, for example, fishing.26Mr Stokes increased his security because he was concerned about Mr Ragless’ behaviour. 27Mr Stokes did not enjoy the process of giving evidence and going through it all again was a painful experience.[231] T598-600.[232] T399; Exhibit P1, Volume 1, page 477.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: BAMPTON J

Full text does not contain this section.