Stokes v Ragless - [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 v State of New South Wales & Ors (1997) 189 CLR 465; Guise v Kouvelis (1947) 74 CLR 102; Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 366; Roberts v Bass (2002) 212 CLR 1; Atkas v Westpac Banking Corporation (2010) 241 CLR 79; Enders v Erbas & Associates Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 70; Barrow v Bolt [2015] VSCA 107; Triggell v Pheeney (1951) 82 CLR 497; Coyne v Citizen Finance Ltd (1991) 172 CLR 211; Cush v Dillon (2011) 243 CLR 298, considered.

STOKES v RAGLESS
[2017] SASC 159
Civil
BAMPTON J.
Introduction
The proceedings
The trial
Background
Mr Ragless
Mr Stokes
Mr Ragless and Mr Stokes’ relationship
Mr Dawes’ concern about Mr Ragless’ behaviour
Mr Ragless and Mr Stokes fall out
15 August 2012 committee meeting of Southern Branch

The letter in the FGFA newsletter
The incident between Mr Ragless and Mr Perry on 15 September 2012
The State titles
Mr Dawes’ notification to Registrar of Firearms 12 October 2012
Mr Stringer’s notification to Registrar of Firearms 15 October 2012
Mr Ragless’ website is up and running

The 23 October 2012 emails
The “What really happened to Raggy” website

Mr Ragless’ membership of SAFGA suspended three days prior to the AGM
The Southern Branch AGM 27 October 2012
The medals thrown in the bin
The text message from Warrnambool
The bumper stickers

The 2014 SAFGA AGM
The Dubai shooting championship
Related litigation commenced by Mr Ragless
Mr Ragless’ psychiatric condition
Nicole Johnson’s report 7 November 2012
Dr Minkiewicz’s reports 5 November 2012 and 4 August 2014
Mark McHugh’s report 25 September 2014

Publication
Publication by email
Publication by internet
Did the emails and website publications convey the imputations alleged?
The publications complained of
Publications 1 to 5 – the 30 October email
Publications 6 to 13 – the 30 October email
Publication 14 – the 2 May update
Publication 15 – the 17 May update
Publication 16 – the 28 January update
Publications 17 to 35 – the 28 January update
Publication 36 – the 30 January update
Publications 37 to 44 – the “corrupt Southern faction”
Publication 45 – the 31 January update
Publication 46 – the 10 February update
Publication 47
Publications 48 to 51
Publication 52 – the 18 February update
Publications 53 to 54
Publication 55 – the 20 February update
Publication 56 – “A bootlegger and his bootlickers”
Publications 57 to 58 – “well heeled thug”
Publication 59 to 60
Publication 61 – the 20 February email to Dane Hasting
Publication 62 – the 21 February update
Publications 63 to 68
Publication 69 – the 24 February update
Publication 70 to 82 – the “criminal element”
Publications 83 to 92 – “intimidated by Stokes”
Publications 93 to 101 – “these thugs”
Publication 102 – the 28 February update
Publications 103 to 118 – “corrupt Southern Committee”
Publication 119 – the 3 March update
Publication 120
Publication 121
Publication 122 – the 11 March update
Publications 123 to 124 – the 11 March update
Publications 125 to 126 – “criminals”
Publication 127 – the 21 March update
Publications 128 to 131 – the 21 March update
Publication 132 – the 31 March update

Mr Stokes and his witnesses
Bryan Stokes
Peter Perry
David Rehn
Darian Stringer
Greg Dawes
Jynette Dawes
Mr Ragless and his witnesses
Stephen Ragless
Timothy Roehl
David Taylor
Phillip Kemp
Hayley Smith
Wayne Ragless
Nick Carter
James Wilson
The extent of publication
Mr Stokes has established his case on liability
The defences
Justification
Qualified Privilege
Remedies and damages
General damages
Aggravated damages
Interest
Permanent injunction
Conclusion
Appendices
Appendix 1 – Sick ???? Who’s Sick
Appendix 2 – Article published in FGFA newsletter
Appendix 3 – Mr Ragless’ email of 23 October 2012
Appendix 4 – Mr Stokes’ email of 23 October 2012
Appendix 5 – Photograph of the medals in the bin
Introduction

Bryan Stokes caught the clay target shooting bug after a successful business career. Mr Stokes, a “retired entrepreneur”, attended an inaugural corporate shoot day at the Southern Branch of the South Australian Field and Game Association (“the Southern Branch”) in 2010. He signed as a member of the club that day and from thereon embraced clay shooting and the Southern Branch, which he considered “was absolutely the best fun”, and it became his main social activity following his retirement.
Clay target shooting was Stephen Ragless’ life. He lived and breathed it until the suspension of his firearms licence on 12 October 2012. He had been “addicted” to it for many years and a member of the South Australian Field and Game Association (“SAFGA”) since the mid-1980s.
Mr Stokes and Mr Ragless were both heavily involved with the Southern Branch in 2012. Mr Stokes, as a new member, was eager to assist the administration of the Southern Branch by applying his business nous and financial resources. He joined the committee of the Southern Branch and set about a process of reform with much vigour. Mr Ragless was “part of the furniture”, having been a member of SAFGA for approximately 25 years, with a penchant for entertaining his fellow members at presentation ceremonies. His name adorned the honour board and he had a wide network of friends at branches throughout the State. Mr Ragless was fondly known as “Raggy” by the established SAFGA community. Unfortunately, Mr Stokes and Mr Ragless did not see eye to eye on certain issues regarding the Southern Branch. Mr Ragless also fell into conflict with Mr Peter Perry, who was the Secretary of the Southern Branch in 2012, so much so that he sought to nominate for the position of Secretary in the 2012 Southern Branch AGM. However, Mr Ragless’ plans were thwarted when his firearms licence was suspended on 12 October 2012 pending an investigation by a delegate of the Registrar of Firearms pursuant to s 20(2) of the Firearms Act 1977 (SA), following reports submitted by the Secretary of SAFGA, Mr Darian Stringer, and the President of the Southern Branch, Mr Greg Dawes, who were concerned about Mr Ragless’ “aggressive, erratic and irrational” behaviour. This was followed by the suspension of his membership of SAFGA on 24 October 2012 “due to conduct unbecoming”.[1]
[1] Exhibit P1, Volume 1, page 88.
This had a devastating effect on Mr Ragless and he took to venting his opinions on a website which he maintained and controlled (“the Website”) (also accessible via
Mr Stokes, his associates, and Mr Ragless engaged in some churlish, puerile, tit-for-tat behaviour in 2012. However, Mr Ragless stepped up his campaign and launched an online vendetta targeting Mr Stokes and the executive of the Southern Branch.
Mr Ragless began publishing material on the Website relevant to the executive of the Southern Branch and the removal of his licence in October 2012, in response to what he saw as a deliberate strategy by Mr Stokes and other committee members to oust him from the Southern Branch and SAFGA. The maintenance of the Website, distribution of emails and other conduct were pursued as part of a campaign by Mr Ragless to clear his name by explaining, in his words, “what happened to Raggy”.
In September 2013, Mr Ragless instructed solicitors to write to Mr Stokes alleging that Mr Stokes had defamed him in an email dated 23 October 2012 and a website page titled “whatreallyhappenedtoraggy.com” and threatening to issue proceedings.[2] Mr Stokes gave evidence that upon receipt of the letter, he felt sick to the stomach and that:[3]
I thought he had a bloody nerve because, at the end of the day, I hadn’t done anything wrong and I believed the only reason he was coming after me and trying to sue me for defamation was he felt he may be able to get money out of me.
[2] Exhibit P29.
[3] T219.
The proceedings
Mr Stokes obtained legal advice regarding the letter he had received from Mr Ragless’ solicitors and thereafter determined that he “would have to start action against Mr Ragless to defend [his] reputation”. These defamation proceedings were commenced in late October 2013.
Mr Stokes’ claim pleaded in the sixth statement of claim was based upon the publication by Mr Ragless of material he alleges is grossly defamatory of him. He alleged that Mr Ragless defamed him on 41 days, by way of 132 publications, comprising 116 separate statements on the Website, 15 emails between 30 October 2012 and 24 June 2014, and via a Facebook page on 3 March 2014.
Mr Stokes alleges that the imputations conveyed by the Website, Facebook posts and the emails directly attacked his character. He alleges that the material published includes imputations that he was a criminal, was corrupt, was a liar, intimidated and attempted to intimidate Mr Ragless and others, abused his positions with the Southern Branch, and was a thug and a bully.
Mr Stokes complains that Mr Ragless has maintained and regularly updated the Website since the commencement of the proceedings, and has posted derogatory and defamatory statements directed at him during that time. He asserts that Mr Ragless has repeated many of the matters complained of during hearings in various Courts and Tribunals, and during the course of the trial in these proceedings.
Mr Stokes says that Mr Ragless has no contrition for any of his statements on the Website directed at him, has never offered an apology (other than a derisory pretence of one on the Website), has stated that he will never proffer an unconditional apology and has repeatedly stated that he will never cease his campaign against Mr Stokes and others.
Mr Stokes seeks vindication of his reputation by way of a substantial award of general damages to reflect “the serious and persistent defamation of his character” by Mr Ragless over a prolonged period. He seeks an award of aggravated damages to reflect the harm done by Mr Ragless since publication, “which has been improper, unjustifiable and motivated by a desire for revenge”.
Mr Stokes also seeks a permanent injunction restraining Mr Ragless from publishing certain words and phrases in light of Mr Ragless’ persistent targeting of him through the Website, his determination to continue his campaign, and his admitted, deliberate flouting of an interim injunction made on 2 April 2014.
Mr Ragless did not challenge any of Mr Stokes’ evidence with respect to publication and admitted that the matters complained of identified Mr Stokes.
To the extent that the pleaded imputations arise, Mr Ragless pleaded his publications are protected by justification at common law and under s 23 of the Defamation Act 2005 (SA) (“the Act”) or qualified privilege at common law and under s 28 of the Act.
It took a further three years following the issuing of proceedings for the matter to go to trial. Other than the period 20 October 2014 to 9 February 2015, Mr Ragless was self-represented. It was early in this interlocutory period on 2 April 2014 that Mr Stokes sought and obtained, having demonstrated a prima facie case, an interlocutory injunction requiring Mr Ragless to remove specified material from the Website and to refrain from further publishing defined material about him. I do not understand why, having obtained that injunction, Mr Stokes did not seek an early trial but participated in a lengthy adversarial interlocutory process that involved numerous applications, in the main regarding pleadings and disclosure. I also make the observation that, during the trial, the wall on Mr Stokes’ side of the courtroom was lined with many lever arch folders, I assume containing the documentation generated during the life of the action. Again, I query why the generation of so much documentation was necessary in circumstances where Mr Stokes had established a prima facie case for the purposes of the injunction and in circumstances where Mr Ragless was, for the most part, unrepresented and whose online campaign clearly needed to be stopped. This, as Mr Stokes’ counsel submitted, is a straightforward defamation action. However, it became complex in its proliferation, in my view, because the trial of the matter was not heard soon after the injunctive orders were made. The complexity caused by the delay is made apparent by the fact counsel for Mr Stokes tendered 10 copies of the Website in its entirety as at 10 different dates after the injunction was ordered, namely: 25 March 2016, 25 April 2016, 25 May 2016, 25 June 2016, 31 June 2016, 25 August 2016, 2 September 2016, 5 September 2016, 9 September 2016, and 14 September 2016.[4]
[4] Exhibits P12, P13, P14, P15, P16, P17, P18, P53, P55, P56.
At the commencement of trial, Mr Ragless made an application[5] seeking dismissal of the claim on the basis “that perjury issues exposed in associated court cases implicate the Plaintiff and corrupt the plaintiff’s claim”. I dismissed the application. Prior to doing so, Mr Ragless told me he would not be actively defending the claim but relying on his defence. As it transpired, Mr Ragless acted in his own defence throughout the 15 day trial. Mr Stokes was represented by Ms Walker.
[5] FDN 132.
Ms Walker attempted to display the alleged defamatory material on computer screens. However, the resolution of the documentation and website extracts sought to be displayed was very poor and very difficult to read. Accordingly, attempts to run Mr Stokes’ case electronically were abandoned. The question of costs associated with the attempt to run an electronic trial (e.g. scanning documents) are a matter for determination by the taxing Master.
Following the closing of the defence case, I ordered that Mr Ragless not publish anything on the Website or by email concerning this trial, regarding anyone or anything to do with SAFGA, the Southern Branch, any of the branches, clay shooting or any of the personalities involved in clay shooting.
I did so because there can be no doubt that Mr Ragless published material defamatory of Mr Stokes and failed to establish that any of the publications were justified or protected by qualified privilege. Mr Stokes is entitled to damages and the permanent injunction against Mr Ragless. My reasons follow.
The trial
Mr Stokes gave evidence and called the following witnesses:
·Peter Perry, Secretary and Publicity Officer of the Southern Branch, editor of the Southern Branch newsletter and Mr Stokes’ shooting coach in 2012. Mr Perry had been a member of the Southern Branch for about 13 years at the time of trial. He has been on the committee for about 10 years. He is an accredited firearms safety instructor and holds coaching qualifications.
·David Rehn, who joined SAFGA in 1983 and held the position of President of SAFGA for three years up to the SAFGA AGM in February 2013.
·Darian Stringer, former member of the Southern Branch and Secretary of SAFGA in 2012.
·Gregory Dawes, a member of the Southern Branch. Mr Dawes owns and operates a business, Ink on Paper, and is married to Jynette Dawes.
Mr Dawes met Mr Ragless at a shoot in 2004 at the Central branch and they became close friends. They lived close to each other. In about 2007, Mr Dawes was retrenched and Mr Ragless employed him for about a year.
Mr Dawes was the President of the Southern Branch for two years from 2012. He became the Treasurer of SAFGA in 2014 at the same time that Mr Stokes became President of SAFGA. Mr Dawes met Mr Stokes in 2009 or 2010 at the Southern Branch. He referred to Mr Stokes having provided significant assistance to the Southern Branch since that time. Mr Dawes became aware of Mr Stokes’ business achievements and took particular interest because of his own involvement in the printing industry.
·Jynette Dawes, wife of Mr Dawes. Mrs Dawes works with her husband in the family business, Ink on Paper. She has been a member of SAFGA since 2013. Mrs Dawes got to know Mr Ragless reasonably well through her husband’s association with him. She did not know Mr Stokes particularly well but saw him from time to time and heard about his association with Cartridge World through other people at Southern Branch.
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.
While he was in Adaire Clinic, a representative of the Firearms Branch attended the front counter and Mr Ragless handed over his firearms licence. His firearms had previously been taken by Mr Dawes to a licensed gun dealer for storage. During this period of time, Mr Ragless was very happy for Mr Dawes to manage these matters on his behalf. His condition is described in these reasons under the heading “Mr Ragless’ psychiatric condition”.[10] Mr Dawes supported Mr Ragless during his time and visited him regularly in hospital. Mr Ragless stated on the Website on 14 October 2012 in relation to this period in his life that:[11]
Greg was there to support me when I was going through the worst part of my sickness … We have had a few differences of opinion over the years but I have never doubted his integrity or our friendship.
[10] Exhibit P1, Volume 1, page 176; Exhibit P6; Exhibit P7.
[11] Exhibit P31, page 7.
Mr Ragless’ daughter, Michelle, became unwell while he was in hospital and tragically died in December 2009, within about nine months of being diagnosed with cancer. The grief associated with the tragedy of his daughter’s death compromised Mr Ragless’ recovery. He initially named the Website “australianmaid”, which includes the acronym MAID for Michelle Anne Innovative Design, in honour of his daughter.
Mr Ragless was discharged with prescribed medication and continued to see Dr Jolly throughout 2009 and was in communication with Community Mental Health Services until June 2011. He took 600mg of Quetiapine for 12 to 18 months before dropping down to 300mg and then slowly reduced his dosage after six months by taking a 300mg tablet every five or six days. He decided to finally stop taking medication whilst on a campervan holiday in New Zealand in April 2012.
Mr Ragless’ daughter, Mrs Hayley Smith, spoke about her father’s mental health issues in 2008. She said that he was like a stranger to her as he would not engage with her or her family. It was not until 2011 or 2012 that Mrs Smith considered that he was back to normal.
Mr Ragless became concerned with certain issues regarding SAFGA. He felt that people were being driven out. He also thought that Mr Perry and Mr Monaghan were inappropriately using the Southern Branch for commercial purposes by conducting regular coaching sessions. He said Mr Perry also planned practice sessions that clashed with shoots at the Central branch, which forced members to choose between the two. Mr Ragless objected to this because it was common practice for Southern Branch members to attend the Central branch shoots. Mr Ragless was upset with Mr Dawes for supporting this new practice. He resolved to run against Mr Perry in 2012 for the position of Secretary because of this issue, but thought that Mr Dawes attempted to undermine him by telling people that he was suffering another breakdown.
Mr Stokes
Mr Stokes left school shortly before his 16^th birthday and became a dry cleaner. After marrying his first wife, he relocated from Tasmania to South Australia. Mr Stokes engaged in various employments after arriving in South Australia and returned to the dry cleaning business by leasing, and then acquiring, a dry cleaning business at 190 Hampstead Road.[12]
[12] T109.
To increase traffic flow, in or about 1980, Mr Stokes introduced a cigarette business into his dry cleaning business. He also sold home brewing supplies and ice, from the Hampstead Road premises.
He set up a business called BHBS Pty Ltd, an acronym from Bryan’s Home Brewing Supplies, and, after obtaining legal advice, that business began supplying cigarettes on consignment from a company in Queensland. The reason for this was that, at the time, Queensland did not have state taxation or a licence regime on cigarettes whereas in South Australia there was a 25 per cent tax on cigarettes.[13]
[13] T110.
In 1986, the Tobacco Products (Licensing) Act 1986 (SA) came into force imposing licensing requirements on the purchase of cigarettes from unlicensed tobacconists.
Consequently, BHBS Pty Ltd’s sales of cigarettes came to the attention of the State Revenue Office. It also received electronic and print media attention. BHBS Pty Ltd was charged under the Tobacco Products (Licensing) Act for failing to fill in customer declarations.
Mr Stokes said that at the time BHBS Pty Ltd was charged it was in the process of lodging a challenge to the validity of the Tobacco Products (Licensing) Act in the High Court. However, in May 1998, Mr Stokes was attacked at his Hampstead Road premises. He was hit on the side of his face with a steel bar, knocked unconscious and the dry cleaning business premises was set alight. Attending fire brigade officers found Mr Stokes outside the business. Mr Stokes was hospitalised suffering significant injuries including a fractured jaw and an intracranial haematoma. The assault on Mr Stokes and the arson attack on his business were declared a major crime and it remains unsolved.
The assault and arson ultimately led to Mr Stokes’ bankruptcy. Consequently, Mr Stokes did not have the funds for BHBS Pty Ltd to continue the High Court challenge. BHBS Pty Ltd was convicted under the Tobacco Products (Licensing) Act in the Holden Hill Magistrates Court and was fined in the order of $13,000. The conviction received media attention. Mr Ragless obtained and published on the Website in February 2014 a copy of a newspaper report of the matter which included a photo of a younger Mr Stokes.
Significantly, Mr Stokes was not charged personally in respect of the matter and he has never been convicted of an offence.[14]
[14] T113.
Mr Stokes submitted that the High Court subsequently held in Ha v State of New South Wales & Ors[15] that the New South Wales equivalent of the South Australian Tobacco Products (Licensing) Act was invalid.
[15] (1997) 189 CLR 465.
Mr Stokes told me that, as a result of the assault and arson, he suffered what was described to him as post-traumatic stress disorder and a lot of anxiety. He found that he was frightened to go outside for reasons including the notoriety of BHBS Pty Ltd. He was reluctant to socialise and did not want to deal with customers. Mr Stokes said he does not like talking about these traumatic events from his past. He said that he has had a lot of media exposure in the past relating to BHBS Pty Ltd and does not want any further media attention.[16]
[16] T174.
Mr Stokes’ fortune changed when he was about 40 years old and he saw an ad for training to refill laser printer cartridges for $3,950. Mr Stokes travelled to Melbourne in 1988 and learned to refill laser printer cartridges. He said that he returned to Adelaide with “a suitcase, a screwdriver and a pair of pliers”,[17] built a garden shed and started a laser cartridge refilling business. The business was named Australian Cartridge Company.
[17] T115.
In 1992, Mr Stokes suffered an accident with a circular saw and damaged his right hand significantly, requiring several operations which left him unable to use his hand for a number of years. While he was incapacitated, Mr Stokes employed casuals and, in training them, discovered that he had the ability to teach people fairly quickly how to fill cartridges, leaving him to market and promote the business. Mr Stokes went on to conduct training courses similar to the course he had undertaken in Melbourne in 1988. Mr Stokes said that in late 1995 he realised that there were franchise opportunities for the business and he employed Mr Paul Wheeler, who become a 50 per cent shareholder in the business.[18]
[18] T166-177.
The business was renamed Cartridge World and its franchise operation expanded overseas. In 2007, there were 1,825 Cartridge World stores in 62 countries in the world.[19] At that time, Mr Stokes and Mr Wheeler sold all but 10 per cent of their interest in Cartridge World to a private equity firm. Mr Stokes said his 10 per cent interest has essentially been diluted to almost nothing and is held by a trustee company.
[19] T117.
Mr Stokes is prone to talking about his involvement with Cartridge World because he is very proud of what he has achieved. He has, as a result of media and internet reporting of his business achievements, tended to talk about it with new people he meets.[20]
[20] T120.
After selling 90 per cent of his interest in Cartridge World in 2007, Mr Stokes retired. During his retirement, he pursued two interests: fishing and target shooting.
Mr Stokes said that after years of operating foot pedals as a dry cleaner he suffers an ankle disability. He is restricted in the distances he can walk and has a sticker on his vehicle permitting him to use accessible parking spaces.[21] He gave evidence that he was upset when he saw a copy of the sticker posted on the Website.[22]
[21] T121.
[22] T122.
Mr Stokes’ interest in fishing includes participation in fishing competitions such as the Tuna Classic conducted in Port Lincoln, which he and his crew won in 2014.[23] Mr Stokes owns a large motorboat named “C’World” in reference to Cartridge World. He said he has owned a number of large boats, the biggest being a 70 foot Riveria. He now has a 63 foot Riveria. He explained that a Riviera is a Flybridge Cruiser. He told me that the 70 foot vessel he owned had four bedrooms and four bathrooms.
[23] T126.
Mr Perry gave evidence that he has known Mr Stokes since Mr Stokes attended the corporate day shoot in 2010. He found Mr Stokes to be a positive and enthusiastic member of the Southern Branch. Mr Perry said Mr Stokes has been a very generous member of the club, not just in a monetary sense but also with his time. Mr Stokes made things happen, for example, he went out and bought parts needed for the new clubhouse kitchen and said “You can pay me back later”. Mr Perry referred to Mr Stokes being the right fit with the demographic:[24]
… in terms of people we’re trying to attract to the club, so that makes him a great interest of someone like me who’s trying to grow the club. When we discovered that - or when I discovered that Bryan was also well off financially I thought it would be a really good thing to keep him in the club.
[24] T346.
As Mr Stokes’ shooting scores were very poor, Mr Perry decided to coach him so that Mr Stokes would enjoy his shooting experience.[25]
[25] T346.
Mr Stokes described himself as a very sharing type of person[26] and said that he is generous by nature. He explained that he invited people he associates with in fishing to participate in shooting with him and those he shoots with to fish with him.
[26] T133/T142.
He spoke of how during a shooting event in Tasmania in 2011 when he and six other shooters were unable to be accommodated in the buffet restaurant at the Casino at a cost of $40 per head, he took his fellow shooters to the silver service restaurant in the Casino “knowing that most of them probably hadn’t had lots of opportunity to do that”[27] and paid the difference between the $40 per head cost and the total bill, which was about $2,500. Mr Ragless attended this meal, during which Mr Stokes ordered and paid for a bottle of Grange and a $919 bottle of Chateau d’Yquem.
[27] T180.
When Mr Stokes joined the Southern Branch, he enjoyed his association so much that he purchased land immediately adjacent to the club, on which he intended to build a home which would have given him very easy access to the club.[28] Mr Stokes explained that clay target shooting and the Southern Branch became his main social activity, filling the vacuum left after retiring.[29]
[28] T149.
[29] T139.
Mr Stokes said that he made a number of investments in his shooting hobby, including several shotguns, a buggy, shooting apparel, outfitting his vehicle to keep the guns secure, accommodation and travel costs, and modifying a trailer. He explained that he commissioned, but had not received at the time of trial, a one-off Krieghoff Gun of the Year at a cost of $230,000. He has made financial and non-financial contributions to the Southern Branch, including donations, loans, and man hours for the construction of a new clubhouse. He donated kitchen equipment, a new ride‑on lawnmower, traps, a container for the storage of equipment, and sponsored shoots and trophies. Mr Dawes gave evidence that Mr Stokes is well‑known both within the Southern Branch and SAFGA and more broadly in South Australia, as well as in Victoria and at a national level.[30]
[30] T551; T145; T344-345.
Mr Stokes said that at SAFGA events, his shooting jacket bears his name and that he is one of the few people who travels by buggy due to his ankle disability. Mr Dawes said that Mr Stokes, whom he described as “larger than life”, has attended shoots in his Rolls Royce on more than one occasion which has become a talking point within the shooting community.[31]
[31] T551.
During the November 2011 AGM, Mr Stokes became Assistant Secretary of the Southern Branch Committee. Mr Stokes was elected President of SAFGA at its AGM on 24 February 2014. He held both positions at trial.
Mr Ragless and Mr Stokes’ relationship
Mr Stokes met Mr Ragless in early 2011 and knew him as “a very well respected member, he’d done a considerable amount for the club over many, many years”.[32] They initially had a good relationship. Mr Stokes gave evidence that as at September 2012 he had no reason to believe that Mr Ragless had any problem with him.[33] Mr Stokes spoke about providing upfront funds for renovations carried out on the clubhouse and Mr Ragless warning him that people might abuse his generosity.
[32] T149.
[33] T157.
Mr Dawes’ concern about Mr Ragless’ behaviour
In mid-2012, Mr Dawes noted some changes in Mr Ragless’ behaviour and, while he could not put his finger on it, he said something was just wrong.[34] He said that he started receiving emails from Mr Ragless which did not make sense and that Mr Ragless became very focussed on individuals, including Mr Perry.[35] He said that Mr Ragless was terse and did whatever he wanted to do without regard for others at this time. Mr Dawes explained that, in August 2012, he and Mr Ragless travelled to a shoot at Central branch together and during that trip Mr Ragless was all over the place. He was talking about having written to the people he had done electrical work for in 2008 at time of his breakdown:[36]
… telling them that if they weren’t happy with his work, he would fix it, he didn’t care, and I remember my exact words to him ‘Who the hell let you do that?’. That was the start of the conversation and he was all over the place. And he talked about many things. He talked about and got to the Hoddle Street and Port Arthur shootings, which I found particularly disturbing, especially Port Arthur.
Following that trip, Mr Dawes was sufficiently concerned to contact Mr Ragless’ wife.[37]
[34] T551.
[35] T619.
[36] T661.
[37] T556.
Mr Ragless and Mr Stokes fall out
In 2012, Mr Ragless and Mr Stokes fell into disagreement during the planning of the clubhouse renovations about the materials to be used in the renovations and, following the disagreement, Mr Ragless resigned from the building subcommittee on 17 September 2012.
Mr Ragless was also concerned with the attempt to transfer the property at Southern Branch away from SAFGA to a separate entity controlled by Southern Branch members. Mr Ragless objected to this because of his concern that the control of the property could be abused by a small group of people. Mr Ragless maintained that his allegiance lay with the broader SAFGA community, and asserted that Mr Stokes and Mr Perry were more concerned with the welfare of Southern Branch as a discrete entity.
15 August 2012 committee meeting of Southern Branch
On 15 August 2012, the committee of the Southern Branch held a meeting at the Secretary Mr Perry’s home. Mr Stokes, the President Mr Dawes, Mr Perry and others were present at the meeting. Prior to the meeting, Mr Ragless had contacted Mr Perry and asked to attend the meeting. Immediately prior to the meeting, Mr Ragless emailed Mr Perry a copy of a letter he had written entitled “Sick???? Who’s Sick”.[38]
[38] Exhibit P1, Volume 1, pages 40-42.
Mr Ragless stated that he wanted to go to the committee meeting to discuss the fact that other people would have suffered mental health issues and that people could learn about his experience. At the time of the meeting his relationship with Mr Stokes was good, except for the disagreement about the appropriate material for the construction of the clubhouse.
Mr Ragless attended the meeting, read out his letter and expanded on its contents. Mr Stokes recalled that Mr Ragless spoke for 45 minutes to an hour and made comments about having suicidal thoughts and the methods he would or would not use.[39] Mr Stokes was challenged on his recollection of this reference to suicidal thoughts, however, he maintained that Mr Ragless made these comments. Mr Stokes also recalled Mr Ragless saying he felt he was “okay enough” to stop taking his pills. He thought that Mr Ragless had put the committee in a difficult position and he asked him to retract the letter. Mr Perry gave evidence about the stunned silence that followed Mr Ragless’ speech.
[39] T152; T554.

The minutes of the meeting record that Mr Ragless expanded upon the contents of the letter and was asked to retract the parts of his presentation regarding suicide. The minutes record “After Steve left, committee members expressed deep concern about his health”.
Mr Ragless did not recall talking about killing himself or anyone asking him to withdraw anything that he said, though he recalled Mr Stokes expressing empathy for his plight.
Mr Dawes recalled this meeting and said:[40]
The part that stuck the most in my mind was where he talked about laying awake at 2.30 in the morning and considering ways of finishing his life and he expanded upon that, he told us the ways he’d thought about doing it and I found that disturbing and I know everybody else in the meeting found that disturbing.
Mr Dawes was motivated to help Mr Ragless and did not immediately notify the Firearms Branch of SAPOL because he thought that he could help him.
[40] T554.
Mr Stokes, Mr Dawes and Mr Perry gave evidence that they were very concerned about the welfare and stability of Mr Ragless following this meeting. They considered that the committee was left in a difficult position.
The letter in the FGFA newsletter
Mrs Smith described her father wanting to publish the letter he had written about his breakdown in an attempt to help others like him. The letter was subsequently published in the September 2012 issue of the FGFA newsletter.[41] A copy of the letter Mr Ragless read out at the committee meeting is Appendix 1 and the version published in the FGFA newsletter is Appendix 2 to these reasons. The letter was also sent to several members of SAFGA by Mr Ragless prior to its publication in the newsletter.
[41] Exhibit P2.
The incident between Mr Ragless and Mr Perry on 15 September 2012
On 15 September 2012 at a shoot at Southern Branch, Mr Ragless was in a shooting squad with Mr Perry and four others. There was some disagreement between the members of the squad prior to the commencement of shooting. The branch was trialling a new procedure called a “shotgun start” that was the cause of some controversy.
Mr Ragless made an incident report to Mr Dawes by email on 19 September asserting that when he was shooting, Mr Perry stopped him because of a safety concern caused by the wind. The realignment of the targets caused a further disagreement. Mr Ragless claimed that Mr Perry became irrationally angry and started yelling and swearing at him. Mr Ragless acknowledged that he responded to Mr Perry’s aggression and the disagreement escalated. Mr Perry gave evidence about the incident. He stated that Mr Ragless made contact with his back while he was shooting, which was against safety regulations. Mr Perry also submitted a report to Mr Dawes about the incident. He considered that Mr Ragless was attempting to provoke him in the context of a disagreement about the new procedure.
Mr Perry asserted that Mr Ragless continually breached shooting etiquette and hindered Mr Perry’s attempts to ensure safety standards were adhered to. Mr Perry eventually lost patience with Mr Ragless and told him to shut up. Mr Perry alleged that Mr Ragless then made contact with his back while he was preparing to shoot and he turned around, but ensured that his gun was pointed towards the ground. He acknowledged and regretted that he swore at Mr Ragless, but considered that he was deliberately provoked to a point where he could no longer control his frustration.
Mr Dawes, as President of the Southern Branch, chastised both Mr Ragless and Mr Perry for their inappropriate behaviour:[42]
Yeah, they were both senior people within a club and within an association and they both know to behave better than that, should both behave like gentlemen to start with, and if you have an issue, out on the shooting ground is not the place to do it, you go inside, you have a meeting behind closed doors, you don’t carry on like spoilt children, to be perfectly honest, yeah.
[42] T564.
Mr Ragless said he received a reply to his report regarding the incident from Mr Dawes on 19 September “dismissing the incident as trivial … and bringing the A.G.M. forward to 28/10/12 to let the members talk”.[43]
[43] Exhibit P1, Volume 1, page 104.
Mr Ragless claimed he then sent “a notice of my intention to stand for State Secretary” to Mr Dawes on 20 September asking that it be forwarded to the committee members with his incident report about the altercation with Mr Perry.
Mr Ragless said he received a reply from Mr Dawes on 20 September stating that he had conferred with the SAFGA Secretary, Mr Stringer, and the notice would not be sent out as it was unconstitutional.
Mr Ragless said he then was telephoned by the SAFGA President, Mr Rehn, on 20 September who informed him that Mr Dawes had brought forward the election “citing my mental instability as the reason”.
Mr Dawes said he decided to bring the AGM forward to October to resolve the issues in Southern Branch. He was concerned about Mr Ragless canvassing votes. He also said that Mr Ragless, having stated that he would run for Secretary, then withdrew that intimation on 30 September saying that he had concerns for his health from family and friends.[44]
[44] Exhibit P1, Volume 1, page 12.
On 24 September, Mr Ragless sent an email to the Southern Branch committee members saying he had lost confidence in the President Mr Dawes and the Secretary Mr Perry and he intended to find people to replace them.
The State titles
Mr Ragless maintained that he attempted to resolve his issues with the committee at the State titles on 6 and 7 October 2012 in Birdwood but was told he had to submit an official complaint. Mr Stokes, Mr Dawes, Mr Perry, Mr Stringer and Mr Rehn attended the State titles.
Mr Rehn gave evidence that Mr Ragless was in an aggravated state, quite rowdy, and determined to get his point of view across about the conflict with Mr Perry that had occurred on 15 September. Mr Rehn said he asked Mr Ragless to put his complaint about Mr Perry into writing. Mr Rehn suggested to Mr Ragless that the altercation with Mr Perry needed to be resolved through reconciliation or mediation. He had a similar discussion with Mr Perry and both were initially open to such a suggestion. However, after Mr Rehn left the shoot, he was informed by Mr Stringer that Mr Ragless refused to attend any reconciliation.
Mr Stringer said that he noted Mr Ragless lobbying SAFGA members to hold a meeting about the incident with Mr Perry in a very confronting and demanding manner.
Mr Dawes said that Mr Ragless was increasingly agitated as the weekend progressed during the State titles event. Mr Ragless demanded a meeting between the Central branch, the Southern Branch and the SAFGA executive. Mr Dawes spoke about a rumour that had started to spread that Mr Perry had turned around with a loaded gun during the 15 September incident. Mrs Ragless also confronted Mr Dawes, alleging that Mr Perry had turned around with a loaded gun during that incident. Mr Dawes obtained statements from witnesses to the incident confirming that the altercation was a heated argument between Mr Perry and Mr Ragless but it did not involve pointed guns.
On 11 October, Mr Ragless sent an official complaint to the SAFGA Secretary, Mr Stringer. He maintains that shortly after he submitted this complaint, his firearms licence was taken away by two policemen who arrived at his house.
Mr Dawes’ notification to Registrar of Firearms 12 October 2012
Mr Dawes was responsible for one of two notifications sent to the SAPOL Firearms Branch about Mr Ragless. He said he found it a very difficult thing to do because of his friendship with Mr Ragless and because he had never been involved in such a process before. However, he felt obliged to follow through with the notification because he had delayed doing so and the situation had escalated. He asked Mr Perry to witness the signing of the document. He regrets that decision because of the ill-feeling between Mr Ragless and Mr Perry.
Mr Perry said that he assisted Mr Dawes in preparing the report to SAPOL because his writing skills were better than Mr Dawes’. He polished it so that it read well. He said that they scanned it and sent it to SAPOL. Mr Perry said that he and Mr Dawes together spoke with Mr Stringer and Mr Rehn about Mr Ragless. Mr Perry expressed his concerns and made it clear that if the SAFGA Executive did not make a report he would, and they agreed that they would make a report to SAPOL about Mr Ragless’ behaviour. He said that the Southern Branch executive was requested to also make a report. He believed that it was Mr Stringer and Mr Rehn who suggested it would be of assistance. He said that Mr Stokes was not involved in the decision, but agreed that he may have been aware of it.[45]
Mr Stringer’s notification to Registrar of Firearms 15 October 2012
[45] Exhibit P33.
Mr Stringer was responsible for the other notification sent to the SAPOL Firearms Branch after a discussion with Mr Rehn. Mr Stringer had regular contact with the Firearms Branch at SAPOL at the time and he had discussed the issues with Mr Ragless with officers of the Branch. He completed a form to lodge an official notification and knew that Mr Dawes was going to do the same. He spoke to Mr Rehn before lodging the notice, but did not discuss the matter with Mr Stokes.
Mr Rehn gave evidence that, after the State titles, he travelled to Perth. While there, he had a number of discussions with Mr Stringer, Mr John Bennett and others on the executive of SAFGA about lodging a notification under the firearms legislation. Mr Rehn said that he was concerned to mitigate the risks of a confrontation between members on a shooting range. Mr Rehn said that he also discussed the matter with Mr Dawes and Mr Ray Pash, Assistant Secretary of SAFGA at the time. He did not speak to Mr Stokes in arriving at the decision to lodge the notification. Mr Rehn considered that the notification was supported by the SAFGA executive. He said he contacted every member of the SAFGA executive and the branch Presidents prior to agreeing to report Mr Ragless to the Firearms Branch.[46] He said that whilst everyone he contacted was concerned about making the notification, they accepted that it was necessary and no one objected.
[46] T440-442.
The Firearms Branch suspended Mr Ragless’ licence on 12 October 2012 and notified Mr Stringer of the suspension on 15 October 2012.
Mr Stokes said that he learned of the notification from Mr Stringer after it had occurred.[47]
[47] T161; 468-469.
Mr Rehn said that Mr Ragless telephoned him every couple of days up until he resigned his membership. Mr Rehn said that he had a clear recollection that every conversation would start or finish with the phrase “Dave, listen very carefully, I have the time and the money to make the Southern Branch and SAFGA do as I want”.[48]
[48] T404.
On 19 October 2012, Mr Ragless nominated for the position of Secretary and President of the Southern Branch and his supporters also nominated for a number of positions.[49]
[49] Exhibit P4.
Mr Roehl gave evidence that when he was a member of SAFGA in 2012 at Mr Ragless’ request he agreed to nominate for a position on the Southern executive. He recalled that Mr Ragless faxed seven nomination forms to his office at Torrensville. Mr Ragless told him the forms had to be submitted that day and asked him to deliver them to Mr Perry’s home. Mr Roehl said that he received the fax on a Saturday which was very busy for him as he was escorting a wedding with the Harley motorbikes he owns. He went to the office, picked up the forms, copied them, signed them, rode to Mr Perry’s house and handed the forms to Mr Perry.
Mr Roehl recalled that he did not make the AGM election and vaguely recalled subsequently finding out that he received one or two votes.
Mr Ragless’ website is up and running
Mr Ragless began publishing material on the Website on 14 October 2012 relevant to SAFGA, the Southern Branch, and the suspension of his licence.
The 23 October 2012 emails
Mr Ragless circulated an email on 23 October 2012 at 5.56 am to persons (including Mr Stokes, Mr Dawes, Mr Stringer, and Mr Rehn), accusing people at the Southern Branch of branch stacking and attempting to set him up. A copy of this email is Appendix 3 to these reasons.
Mr Stokes gave evidence that this email concerned him and he considered it was necessary to respond to it to draw the recipients’ attention to the matters Mr Ragless had referred to in the email and on the Website. He responded to Mr Ragless’ email at 10.06 am on 23 October 2012. Mr Stokes copied his response to the same email addresses recorded on Mr Ragless’ email. Mr Stokes’ email commenced by stating “Sorry to any that I may have duplicated”. Mr Ragless’ email is then copied and pasted into the email followed by Mr Stokes’ commentary. The full text of this email is set out as Appendix 4 to these reasons.
In the email, Mr Stokes urged readers to log on to Mr Ragless’ website. He included excerpts from the “Sick???? Who’s Sick” letter and then stated:
The above demonstrates that Mr S Ragless has had previous mental problems, and that concern is that he (Mr Ragless) may be having another such experience. Because of this and the incidents described on the website and other concerning emails, text messages and phone calls to members of the executive of the club, committee members, the executive of the Federation and others it became obvious to very concerned members that the situation was becoming dangerous to not only the sport but perhaps to individuals within the association, the secretary of the association and others. This prompt enough concern to contact the Firearms Licencing Branch of SAPOL who in the interests of concern and safety removed Mr Ragless firearms for safekeeping.
The Police have removed Steve’s firearms. Therefore if he should approach you asking to borrow a firearm and/or ammunition, then politely decline and contact SAPOL asap.
This particular excerpt from the website is very damming and shows behaviour that normal people will find “out there”.
…
The following excerpts again show what would not be considered normal actions
…
The email also included a reference to the upcoming AGM on 27 October and to the delivery of the nominations by a Harley Davidson motorcycle rider. Mr Stokes also included a definition of “sanity” from Mr Ragless’ Website and then said:
This communication has been longer than most people would like to read through and those that read this far through may wonder at my reason for doing so, the reason is concern for the association club members and to attempt to stop the divisive actions happening within. I am also concerned about Mr Ragless, I have no medical training of any nature so I’m unable to judge any persons medical condition, and of course a mental illness is a very difficult condition to diagnose, I can only use what common sense tells all of us, and that is the actions, letters, and website tell me that this is not normal.
Mr Stokes provided three definitions of the word “normal” and concluded the email by saying:
We gratefully thank Steve for all of the help that he has given to our club and sport over the years. Please keep him and his family in your thoughts and prayers at this very difficult and emotional time that they are all facing.
I leave you all to form any conclusion that is required.
Bryan M Stokes
I asked Mr Stokes why he sent the email:[50]
[50] T265.
QCould you just help me understand why you sent this. You were a committee member, you weren’t part of the executive at that stage.
A.Wasn’t part of the executive, no. I was just a committee person.
Q.Why did you send it.
A.Because I was concerned about what was happening and I had done a considerable amount of work at the club and, as a consequence, I didn’t want to see it all frittered away by Mr Ragless and, I guess, a crew of people that were unknown and certainly not known within the club at Southern Branch, hadn’t been active there, and would not really have any knowledge about how to run the club. I could see a disaster shaping up.
Q.So you felt, for want of a better word, defensive of the club.
A.I was defending the club in a big way, yes.
Q.Did you have the approval of the president at that stage to send it. Did you discuss it with him or her.
A.No.
Q.Who was the president at this time in October 2012.
A.Greg; Mr Dawes.
Q.I think Ms Walker asked you at some stage whether you discussed the contents of the letter with anyone.
A.The only person I had a minor discussion with was Mr Peter Perry and that refers to the paragraph about Mr Ragless’s current psychological period, ‘serious mental illness’, the bottom paragraph on p.79.
Q.Where did you get that information from.
A.I believe Mr Perry sent it to me in an email, was the only way I got that.
Q.You think Mr Perry gave you information that he had been suffering a serious mental illness for many years.
A.Yes.
Q.And that his psychiatrist and specialist doctor were attempting to get him back on essential medication.
A.That was my understanding from the discussion I had with Mr Perry and the email that he sent to me.
Q.You encouraged the readers of your email to have a look at the website, ‘What happened to Raggy’ at australianmaid.
A.Yes. I have to qualify that. I felt that members needed to see it themselves rather than just take my word for it. It just had to be looked at to get to some understanding what it was all about.
Q.You refer in the email at the bottom of that page, 80, the second-to-last paragraph, ‘It became obvious to very concerned members that the situation was becoming dangerous’.
A.Yes.
Q.Are you referring to Mr Ragless’s mental health.
A.Yes.
Q.In that context.
A.Yes.
Q.Tell me, if you thought it was at that level why wouldn’t you seek outside help or refer it to the emergency mental health team, for example, if you thought it was a dangerous situation.
A.I didn’t think that it was dangerous in the extent he was going to come at us with a gun. I felt he was dangerous to the extent he was going to cause a lot of harm to the association and the Southern Club.
Q.Did it occur to you by sending this email, I understand it’s in response to one that had been sent, it might exacerbate the situation.
A.I couldn’t see how it could have been exacerbated because of what he had on his website and most of the parts on his website would cause considerable concern to people anyway and it is, I understand, a little difficult to find there, but the vast majority came off his website with comments saying ‘This is what I would not believe to be normal’.
Q.Why did you put that definition of normal in.
A.I guess I needed people to understand when they read through it that normal - this was not normal what he was putting on his website and I needed them to understand the real meaning of normal.
Q.But was that your role as a committee member.
A.I didn’t do it as a committee member, your Honour, I did it as a private individual, not on behalf the club. I had no approval to do it, but I’d had the email from Mr Ragless with all the addresses that he had used, so it was a very frustrating period when you had all this information on his website attacking myself and everybody and I felt that somebody had to do something about bringing it to the attention of other people who were going to come along and vote at our upcoming AGM.
Q.You didn’t think of getting solicitors at that stage to write a letter on your behalf.
A.Your Honour, if we had foresight it would be hard to say what to do, at the time it seemed to be the best thing I could do to perhaps control the situation and get some normality back into the - into what was going on.

In response, Mr Ragless sent an email at 10.09 pm on 23 October 2012 referring to members of SAFGA “who have sat back and allowed a group of self‑centred bastards to run the Southern Branch as their own private club”[51] and to the Website.
The “What really happened to Raggy” website
[51] Exhibit P1, Volume 1, pages 84-86.
Mr Ragless questioned Mr Stokes about a website titled “What really happened to Raggy”. Mr Stokes denied any involvement in the establishment of this website and said Mr Steve Spelman, a SAFGA member, was the author of it.
Mr Ragless’ membership of SAFGA suspended three days prior to the AGM
After Mr Ragless’ firearms licence was removed, Mr Stringer notified Mr Ragless on 24 October 2012 that his SAFGA membership had been suspended due to conduct unbecoming.[52] The letter notified him of his right to appeal and an opportunity to defend his conduct at SAFGA State Council on 10 November 2012. Mr Stringer informed Mr Ragless that SAFGA required, and would facilitate, an independent mental health assessment as part of the process to reinstate his membership. It was revealed in Mr Ragless’ cross-examination of Mr Stringer that Mr Stringer also sent Mr Perry a notice of suspension on 24 October 2012. Mr Stringer said:[53]
… So both of you were given the same letter to show cause why you should not be suspended or expelled from the association as per the constitution.
[52] Exhibit P1, Volume 1, pages 88-89.
[53] T485.
Mr Stringer gave evidence that Mr Ragless was excluded from attending the October 2012 Southern Branch AGM pursuant to the Firearms Act 1977 (SA).
Mr Dawes said that he was not involved with the decision to suspend Mr Ragless’ membership.
The Southern Branch AGM 27 October 2012
Mr Ragless did not attend the Southern Branch AGM on 27 October 2012. He telephoned persons he nominated or supported for positions on the committee beforehand to tell them that he would not attend. Mr Dawes was elected as President, Mr Perry as Secretary and Mr Stokes as a committee member.
Later on 27 October at 4.01 pm, Mr Ragless emailed Mr Rehn, Mr Stringer and others saying that he had “no intention to pursue my membership or the friendship of members of SAFGA” and requested that his name be removed from the member register.[54]
[54] Exhibit P1, Volume 1, page 94.
Despite sending this email, Mr Ragless maintains that he never resigned.[55]
[55] See paras [131]-[134] below.
The next day, Mr Ragless started his campaign to draw attention to what he considered to be a conspiracy within the Southern Branch to exclude him from the club and from obtaining a position on the committee because of a cover up of the argument that he had with Mr Perry on 15 September 2012.
On 28 October 2012, Mr Ragless sent an email to The Advertiser in which he suggested that there was corruption at the Southern Branch following the re‑election of the incumbent committee. He also made a thinly veiled reference to Mr Perry being backed by “a very rich and powerful committee member with similar ideals”.[56]
[56] Exhibit P1, Volume 1, page 95.
On 30 October 2012, Mr Ragless sent the first email complained of by Mr Stokes as defamatory to police and other media outlets.
The medals thrown in the bin
One of the photos on Mr Ragless’ Website was a photograph of medals in a rubbish bin. These were his medals that had been taken down off the Honour Board and thrown in the bin. A copy of this photograph is Appendix 5 to these reasons. Mr Stokes said that whilst his phone was used to take and send the photograph to Mr Ragless, he did not send it. It was sent by Mr Monaghan. Mr Stokes said in response to my question as to why Mr Monaghan sent the photo:[57]
[57] T316.
At that particular time Mr Ragless had made the letter that has been construed as a resignation that he wanted all reference removed from himself and Mr Monaghan took it literally.
In response to my question as to whether sending a photograph of the medals in the bin was an antagonistic action, Mr Stokes said:[58]
[58] T316-317.
A.I suppose it was from Mr Monaghan’s point because he had been quite frustrated about what Mr Ragless had been saying on the website and texts and emails etc.
Q.Why did you allow your phone to be used.
A.Because Mr Monaghan didn’t have a phone with a camera in it.
Q.Did you know what he was going to do with your phone.
A.I did, yes.
Q.So you acquiesced in him doing that.
A.I’d have to say I did. I regret it but there was a degree of anger because we were feeling - this is very early in the piece in 2012 I believe - we were quite angry about - and feeling very helpless about the whole thing. Mr Ragless was sending pictures of bugs on his phone to my phone so I guess whilst it’s not justifiable -
Q.So it was tit for tat.
A.A bit tit for tat, a bit boyish and childish.
The text message from Warrnambool
Mr Ragless questioned Mr Stokes about a text message he received on an occasion when Mr Stokes and others went to Warrnambool in November 2012 for a shoot. Mr Ragless said he received a text message from Mr Stokes’ phone number depicting the breakfast the men were having on the way to a shoot at Warrnambool. Mr Stokes agreed that he sent it. He said it was to show Mr Ragless what he was having for breakfast. Mr Ragless said that was about five weeks after his licence was taken away. Mr Stokes denied that he was “trying to poke his tongue out at” Mr Ragless “or anything like that”.[59]
[59] T292-293.
Mr Ragless said that prior to his licence being taken away, he had intended to go to the Warrnambool shoot in his new caravan.
Mr Stokes agreed that the photograph of the breakfast he sent while travelling to Warrnambool was, like the photo of the medals in the bin, “tit for tat” conduct. I query why Mr Stokes would engage in such conduct having purportedly expressed concern for Mr Ragless and his family in the 23 October 2012 email.
Mr Stokes told me that in October 2012 the following persons were in his camp within the Southern Branch: Mr Perry, Mr Dawes, Mr Monaghan, Mr Peter Hicks, Mr Stringer, Mr Glen Benham, Mr Rod Saligari, and a number of others. He said that as the years progressed, others moved from their support of Mr Ragless to more or less supporting his position. He said:[60]
I’d have to say most of them have moved across to support myself, including Chris Ball, who certainly was against me at the earlier parts of the time. Whilst we’re not good friends, we can converse civilly. Ray Pash as well, I’ve been to the Loxton branch and he’s been very civil to me, Michael Lane has been very civil to me. Basically all - the vast majority of people have changed sides over an extended period of time.
Mr Stokes said he is now very well supported within the association.
[60] T264.
Mr Ragless’ firearms licence was reinstated following Dr Minkiewicz’s report of November 2012 in January 2013 with conditions that he have further review in 12 to 18 months’ time.[61]
[61] See para [147] below.
An application for an intervention order against Mr Ragless was prepared by Mr Stringer in 2013. Two draft applications were tendered into evidence. The first names Mr Stringer, Mr Dawes, Mr Stokes, Mr Rehn and Mr Perry as applicants.[62] The second names Mr Stringer, Mr Dawes, Mr Perry, Mr Rehn, Mr Spelman, Mr Monaghan, Mr Benham, Mr Saligari, Mr John Torresan, Mr Grant Baum, Mr Patrick Torrens, Mr Emilio Calicchio and Mr Allen Marden as applicants.[63]
The bumper stickers
[62] Exhibit P27.
[63] Exhibit P38.
Mr Ragless organised for 200 bumper stickers advertising the Website to be printed in the period between March and June 2013. He referred to them on the Website and handed them out at a shoot. He delivered them to Mr Dawes’ home and around Mr Dawes’ business, Ink on Paper. He placed them on his caravan, and on his daughter’s bike, who took it off because her mother was embarrassed by it. Mr Stokes gave evidence that when he was shown one of the bumper stickers by Mr Dawes he thought to himself “Well, this is really nice isn’t it. More people are going to be visiting his website”.[64]
[64] T253.
The 2014 SAFGA AGM
Mr Stokes ran for election to SAFGA on a ticket with others known as the “Help save SAFGA” group. The AGM was held on or about 22 February 2014. There were two camps competing for control of SAFGA at this time. Mr Stokes was in one camp, which was ultimately successful, and the incumbent executive, including Mr Pash, Secretary, Mr Tony Trevorrow, President, and Mr Carter, were in the other. Mr Ragless supported the incumbent camp.
In the lead up to the 2014 SAFGA AGM, Mr Ragless’ statements on the Website increased significantly. It is apparent that he wanted to do damage to Mr Stokes’ chances in that campaign. He admitted he knew about Mr Stokes’ involvement in the cigarette business as early as April 2013[65] and agreed he intended to use that knowledge to embarrass Mr Stokes.[66]
[65] T1087; Exhibit P1, Volume 2, p 494.
[66] T1116.
Mr Ragless obtained further information from the State Library in February 2014 and used it in his campaign against Mr Stokes[67] in the lead up to the AGM. He admitted that he did so knowing that the period in Mr Stokes’ life when he was assaulted was something that Mr Stokes would like to forget and that, by mentioning it on the Website, Mr Stokes would be asked questions about it. Mr Ragless admitted that he did it because he wanted Mr Stokes to have to deal with something Mr Stokes had told him he would dearly like to forget. He also agreed in cross-examination that he did it knowing it would hurt and upset Mr Stokes to have to talk about it.[68]
[67] T1133-1139.
[68] T1139.
Mr Ragless agreed that he made no enquiries of Mr Stokes or his solicitor before posting a Website update in which he referred to Mr Stokes having been convicted of an offence. He did this despite knowing that a company, not Mr Stokes personally, had been convicted. He explained that “I am still of the opinion that you can’t hide behind a company, simple as that”.[69]
[69] T1139.
Mr Stokes was elected President at the 2014 SAFGA AGM and held that position at trial.
Mr Ragless did not have a firearms licence at trial. He said that he was in Europe in October 2014 when a member of the Firearms Branch spoke to his doctor at the Adaire Clinic. Mr Ragless said the doctor (I assume he meant Dr Minkiewicz) refused to send in a report concerning “the results of my interim test I needed to have in 2014” after talking to the member of the Firearms Branch.
The Dubai shooting championship
Soon after the 2014 SAFGA AGM, Mr Stokes travelled to Dubai for the Nad Al Sheba World Sporting Clays Championship. During discovery in this action, Mr Stokes found out that Mr Ragless had sent an email to the organisers of the Dubai event while Mr Stokes was in Dubai.[70] The email was titled, “Security Issue?” and stated “Please find the enclosed word document regarding some of your competitors registered for your clay target competition”. The attachment commenced with a request that it be passed on to the security department for its information and action if necessary. It referred to attempts to bring to justice several members who had been involved in “deception and intimidation to cover up and condone dangerous and illegal practices”. It referred to the ringleader as Mr Stokes, “who poses as a legitimate law abiding wealthy businessman”. It stated “I am not suggesting these people intend to cause physical harm but … they are under considerable stress”, by which Mr Ragless admitted he meant that they might snap and cause some harm.[71] He also stated in the email attachment that he considered that the organisers should be informed of “any potential safety or sporting fraud issue that may affect [their] event”. Mr Ragless admitted that he sent the email knowing that Mr Stokes was in Dubai, travelling with firearms, and knowing “that people in Dubai who were considered to be criminals or cheats would be treated worse than they would be treated in Australia”.[72] He agreed that he wanted Mr Stokes watched and investigated by the security department of the event and to come to the attention of security services in Dubai.[73] He admitted that he sent the email because he resented the fact that he was not in Dubai and he blamed Mr Stokes and his travelling companions for that.[74] He wanted to cause them embarrassment like he had been suffering.[75]
[70] Exhibit P1, Volume 1, pages 375-376.
[71] T1143.
[72] T1145.
[73] T1143-1146.
[74] T1146.
[75] T1145.
Mr Ragless denied wanting to cause Mr Stokes and his travelling companions harm and said he just wanted them to come to the attention of the organisers. I strongly suspect that Mr Ragless wanted Mr Stokes to come to the attention of security services and possibly be detained for questioning.
Mr Stokes said in evidence that, when he found out about the email, it:[76]
Frightened the hell out of [him] because it just, it rocked the socks off [him] because [he] just did not expect anything like that to be sent by anyone to a country like Dubai in particular, and [he believes he is] just lucky that no action was taken over there.
[76] T208.
Mr Ragless admitted in cross-examination that he had sent similar emails to other events that Mr Stokes had attended, including a competition in Rome in 2016.
Related litigation commenced by Mr Ragless
Mr Ragless has instituted a number of actions in various Courts and Tribunals against Mr Stokes, Mr Dawes, Mr Perry and the Southern Branch seeking redress to the wrongs he considers have been committed against him. In particular, in January 2015, he filed an application in the Magistrates Court against the Southern Branch alleging breaches of the SAFGA Constitution and of the Associations Incorporation Act 1985 (SA), invoking s 61 of that Act. The relief sought included orders regulating the conduct of the Association, orders expelling certain members and orders in respect of a claim for damages and reimbursement of legal costs in the sum of about $500,000.
The action was dismissed because a Magistrate found that it was brought outside of the limitation period of six months from cessation of membership of an association fixed by s 61(2) of the Associations Incorporation Act 1985 (SA). The Magistrate found that Mr Ragless had resigned from SAFGA on 27 October 2012. The finding of the Magistrate was based on the construction of the email sent by Mr Ragless to Mr Stringer on 27 October 2012 which said:
I have no intention to pursue my membership or the friendship of members of South Australia Field and Game Association Inc.
Please remove my name from the member register.
A Judge of this Court dismissed Mr Ragless’ appeal against the Magistrate’s decision, determining that the Magistrate was correct in finding that he had resigned from SAFGA before he instituted the action. On 20 May 2015, the Full Court refused Mr Ragless permission to appeal against the Judge’s dismissal of his appeal, saying that it was not arguable that the decisions of the Magistrate and the Judge were wrong, and that Mr Ragless’ contentions on the construction of his resignation email were unmeritoriously semantic.
Despite the Full Court’s determination, Mr Ragless has maintained in these proceedings that his membership was taken away illegally and that Mr Stokes was implicated in that.
Mr Ragless’ psychiatric condition
Nicole Johnson’s report 7 November 2012
Ms Johnson’s report provided to SAFGA purports to be a “Provisional assessment of the documentation in relation to the issue of capacity to hold or possess firearms by Stephen Ragless”. Ms Johnson described working as a consultant to the New South Wales police department where part of her role was to assess the capacity to hold or possess firearms, often in situations where firearms licences had been suspended. She stated that, at the time of writing her report, she understood that Mr Ragless’ firearms licence had been suspended as had his SAFGA membership. She said that the information she was provided with in writing the report was:
·       An interview with Darian Stringer 3/11/12
·       Letter from SAPOL dated 15/10/12
·       Letter from South Australian Field and Game Association 23/10/12 to Mr Ragless
·       South Australian Field and Game Association Constitution
·       Letter from South Australian Field and Game Association 23/10/12 to Mr Perry
·       Copies of numerous email correspondence and exchanges between stakeholders in this matter.
·       A print-out from a website believed to be the website of Stephen Ragless.
·       A copy of a section in 2012 Nationals newsletter written by Mr Ragless and titled “What really happened to Raggy”.
· Part 3 – Section 20 to 21 of the Firearms Act.
She said that Mr Stringer described witnessing very erratic behaviour from Mr Ragless. He said that several members found Mr Ragless intimidating and threatening and were fearful of him. Ms Johnson said that examination of the documents that she was provided indicated that it was reasonable to be concerned about his capacity to hold firearms. She said that while Mr Ragless had a documented history of mental health issues, this alone did not necessarily constitute a significant risk of safety to self or others. She said it did, however, increase the risk if his mental health issues were not being treated, noting from the documentation written by Mr Ragless that he was not taking his pills, suggesting “that he is largely untreated at this time”. Ms Johnson said that Mr Ragless’ documentation was also quite tangential with elements of paranoid thinking, noting that paranoia increases the risk of harm to self or others in a formal psychiatric risk assessment.
She said that the letter submitted to the FGFA newsletter raised concerns about his insight and judgement and suggested he was unaware of the personal implications and impact such disclosures would hold. She said that there were many examples in the documentation written by Mr Ragless suggesting his mental state was of concern and maybe indicative of an acute episode of mental illness (such as difficulty sleeping, early morning waking, limitless energy, etc). In conclusion, she agreed with the actions of SAFGA in suspending Mr Ragless’ membership and believed that without formal psychiatric assessment he should not be allowed to possess a firearm.
There was a second report prepared by Ms Johnson of the same date, but signed by “Amy in Reception”. Mr Ragless asserts that this report was basically the same as the document signed by Ms Johnson, but all of the “bad things” that Mr Stringer had said and Mr Stringer’s name were no longer in the document.
Dr Minkiewicz’s reports 5 November 2012 and 4 August 2014
Mr Ragless’ psychiatric history is detailed in the report he commissioned from Dr Iris Minkiewicz. Dr Minkiewicz’s report to the Firearms Branch is dated 5 November 2012.[77] Dr Minkiewicz described how Mr Ragless first came into contact with Mental Health Services in June 2008 when he presented to the Noarlunga Health Services Emergency Department with a two-week history of anxiety, depression, paranoid delusions and suicidal ideations. He had a three week admission to a psychiatric inpatient unit and was diagnosed at that time with a psychotic depression. His acute symptoms and distress settled well during admission with antipsychotic and antidepressant treatment, but his paranoid delusions (that he would be charged with fraud related to his previous air conditioning business and contracts) never fully resolved despite treatment, leaving him with chronic underlying anxiety and worry. Dr Minkiewicz described that his recovery was complicated by the death of his daughter from metastatic cancer.
[77] Exhibit P1, Volume 1, pages 176-182.
Dr Minkiewicz stated that Mr Ragless made no suicide attempts and did not act on his paranoid delusions in any way. She described his firearms licence being suspended at the time of his admission in June 2008, largely due to concerns about risk to self while depressed and suicidal, but his licence was later reinstated as he remained stable with no threats or plans to harm himself or others.

Damages in defamation are assessed under common law principles subject to the limited modifications effected by s 32 to s 37 of the Act.[192]
[192] Lesses v Maras (No 2) [2017] SASCFC 137 at [18].
An award of general damages is to compensate for hurt to Mr Stokes’ feelings; for harm to his reputation; and to vindicate his reputation.
In arriving at an award of damages, I bear in mind that Mr Stokes is being compensated by reason of having been exposed to hatred, contempt or ridicule; to being shunned; or otherwise to being lowered in the estimation of the community. Damages are awarded in respect of the effect of the defamation on the community’s estimation of Mr Stokes (“the objective effect”) and the effect on Mr Stokes’ feelings as a result of his perception of that effect (“the subjective effect”).[193]
[193] Lesses v Maras (No 2) [2017] SASCFC 137 at [21].
Section 32 of the Act provides that the award of damages must be such as “to ensure that there is an appropriate and rational relationship between the harm sustained by Mr Stokes and the amount of damages awarded”.
The harm suffered by Mr Stokes due to the objective and subjective effects will depend on many factors including:
·the nature and gravity of the defamatory matters;[194]
·the importance and relevance of the defamatory matters to the recipients;[195]
·the context in which the matters were published;[196]
·the mode of publication;[197]
·the temporal extent of the publication;[198]
·the extent of the publication in terms of the number and class of the recipients;[199]
·the identity of the recipients and their relationship to Mr Stokes and to Mr Ragless;[200]
·the social standing of Mr Ragless.[201]
[194] Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44 at 61 per Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson and Gaudron JJ; John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Kelly (1987) 8 NSWLR 131 at 141-142 per McHugh JA.
[195] Reader’s Digest Services Pty Ltd v Lamb (1982) 150 CLR 500 at 507 per Brennan J (with whom Gibbs CJ, Stephen, Murphy and Wilson JJ agreed).
[196] Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at 165-166 per Hunt CJ at CL (with whom Mason P and Handley JA agreed).
[197] Herald and Weekly Times Limited v McGregor(1928) 41 CLR 254 at 263 per Knox CJ, Gavan Duffy and Starke JJ.
[198] Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at 165-166 per Hunt CJ at CL (with whom Mason P and Handley JA agreed).
[199] Herald and Weekly Times Limited v McGregor(1928) 41 CLR 254 at 263 per Knox CJ, Gavan Duffy and Starke JJ.
[200] Reader’s Digest Services Pty Ltd v Lamb (1982) 150 CLR 500 at 507 per Brennan J (with whom Gibbs CJ, Stephen, Murphy and Wilson JJ agreed).
[201] Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44 at 61 per Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson and Gaudron JJ).
Section 33(1) limits damages for non-economic loss to $389,500.[202]
[202] South Australian Government Gazette dated 20 June 2017, page 2166.
Section 34 provides that the Court is to disregard the malice or other state of mind of Mr Ragless at the time of publication or at any other time, “except to the extent that the malice or other state of mind affects the harm sustained by” Mr Stokes.
The fact that Mr Ragless knew that a defamatory statement was false may increase the subjective harm sustained by Mr Stokes if he believes that Mr Ragless knew that the defamation was false and this exacerbates the hurt to his feelings.[203]
[203] Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118 at 151-152 per Windeyer J.
Mr Ragless has not, in any way, mitigated the damage caused by the defamatory material by way of an apology[204] or a correction.[205]
[204] Defamation Act 2005 (SA), s 36(1)(a).
[205] Defamation Act 2005 (SA), s 36(1)(b)
Mr Ragless’ conduct during this action is a matter I am entitled to take into account in determining the quantum of damages.
Mr Stokes gave evidence about the distress he felt on reading the material published about him and on hearing about it from other members of the SAFGA community. Mr Stokes said that he wanted to leave his past behind and enjoy his retirement but because of the publications he was called upon to justify his actions and explain himself.
Mr Stokes submitted that, having regard to the schedule of cases he annexed to his closing submissions, he ought to be awarded general damages of at least $250,000 and that it should be closer to $300,000 by reason of the number of publications and the period of time that the publications were accessible.
Aggravated damages
Mr Stokes also seeks an award of aggravated damages. Justice Blue set out the principles of such an award in Duffy v Google Inc (No 2):[206]
Aggravated damages in defamation are compensatory and not punitive and are awarded “to reflect conduct by the defendant which aggravates the injury and increases the harm done to the [plaintiff]”.[207]
Aggravated damages may be awarded for defamation when the defendant’s conduct of the defence (or other conduct at or after the publication) is lacking in bona fides, improper or unjustifiable.[208]
(Footnotes in original)
[206] [2015] SASC 206 at [81] – [82].
[207] Carson v John Fairfax and Sons Limited (1993) 178 CLR 44 at 50 per Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson and Gaudron JJ.
[208] Triggell v Pheeney (1951) 82 CLR 497 at 514 per Dixon, Williams, Webb and Kitto JJ; Coyne v Citizen Finance Limited (1991) 172 CLR 211 at 237 per Toohey J (with whom Dawson and McHugh JJ agreed).
I find that Mr Ragless has maintained and regularly updated the Website containing derogatory and/or defamatory statements directed to Mr Stokes during the course of these proceedings.
As submitted by Mr Stokes, the Website content demonstrates the absence of any contrition by Mr Ragless for the statements directed at Mr Stokes. Rather, it demonstrates a commitment to continue the statements until prevented from doing so. For example, Mr Ragless published on the Website on 25 February 2014:[209]
PART OF STOKES’S $100,000 DEFAMATION CLAIM AGAINST ME
DESIGNED TO SHUT ME UP OR SEND ME BROKE ACCORDING TO Garry Tucker
I will apologise the day Garry Tucker shoots 25 so don’t hold your breath BRYAN
[209] Exhibit P1, Volume 2, page 769.
On 5 March 2014 Mr Ragless published the following:[210]
I would like to withdraw the offer above Bryan
It appears the last two events at Rocky Gully were soft enough for even Gary to achieve his dream.
[210] Exhibit P1, Volume 2, page 902.
Mr Stokes’ solicitors wrote to Mr Ragless on 21 February 2014, referring to statements directed to Mr Stokes that had been published on the Website on 18, 20 and 21 February 2014, and requested that Mr Ragless close the Website until the references to Mr Stokes were removed and undertake not to publish any similar statements.
Mr Ragless responded at 10.08 pm on 23 February[211] and stated that the Website was dynamic and changed almost daily, the election of Mr Stokes as President of SAFGA demanded a restructure of his attack, that he made “no apology for calling Mr Stokes a well heeled thug”, and claimed to have proof of that claim.
[211] Exhibit P1, Volume 1, page 372.
Upon Mr Ragless’ refusal to provide the undertaking sought by Mr Stokes, Mr Stokes made the application for an injunction. In answer to that application, Mr Ragless filed an affidavit on 17 March 2014 which alleged that Mr Stokes was a liar, a cheat, and an intimidating individual, had engaged in smuggling involving hundreds of semitrailers and guards riding shotgun, had engaged in illegal activity and had behaved like Al Capone.[212] The affidavit concluded with Mr Ragless’ refusal to remove the defamatory words. At the first return date for the application for an injunction before a Master on 18 March, Mr Ragless consented to some of the orders sought but opposed the balance.
[212] FDN 11.
On 1 April 2014, he emailed a document entitled “A response to Mr Stokes’s outline of argument” to Mr Stokes’ counsel and to the Court in support of his opposition to the balance of the orders sought in the application. The document alleged that Mr Stokes had acted illegally, had been involved in fraud, had engaged in corrupt practice and criminal behaviour, and had intimidated and lied to members of SAFGA.
During the hearing before Parker J on 2 April 2014, Mr Ragless made defamatory statements concerning Mr Stokes. He told the Court that he would rather that the Court order that his arm be cut off than be ordered to apologise for referring to Mr Stokes as a liar and a thug. Following the ordering of the injunction by Parker J on 2 April 2014, Mr Ragless continued to maintain and update the Website, using derisory, insulting and sarcastic references about Mr Stokes including:
1The heading “My Freind Bryan” explained on the website as:[213]
[213] Exhibit P17.
Freinds look like friends. Freinds sound like friends but freinds can usually be recognised by the fact that they put their Ego before their Integrity.
If you get confused about if you should consider the people in your life a FRIEND or a FREIND you can use Raggy’s Rule:
I before E unless they are a “C”
Freind pronounced Freee-nd
2That Mr Stokes had become Jesus;
3The heading “What really made you rich Bryan”;
4Referring to the committee of the Southern Branch as “Stokes Blokes”;
5Referring to Mr Stokes as a puppet;
6Referring to Mr Stokes as WWW (“World Wide Wanker”) as he is known to his “freinds” on 17 March 2014;
7The reference “I am a little disappointed in your lack of integrity”;
8Referring to Mr Stokes as a prick on 25 March 2014;
9The caption below a photograph of Mr Stokes stating “I am not a bootlicker” on 2 April 2014;
10The heading “President’s report from the King of Crap” above a letter signed by Mr Stokes as President of SAFGA dated 2 April 2014;
11Publishing a joke ridiculing Tasmanians for their purportedly low intelligence on 1 and 2 April 2014;
12The declaration on 5 May 2014:[214]
[214] Exhibit P1, Volume 4, page 1595.
You are right Bryan, I do not give up!
If you are waiting for me to collapse before you take your boat out you are backing the wrong horse again.
One of the little black turds working for you has been trying to convince others I am out of control.
You and I know better, don’t we?
13The statement under the heading “Home – my wonderful site” on 29 August 2014:[215]
[215] Exhibit P1, Volume 4, page 2026.
O.K. Bryan: It was not Nick. I am the one that called the CBS about you and the arseholes you rule over so Sue me.
14The statement under the heading “the World Wide Wanker” on 1 and 3 September 2014:[216]
[216] Exhibit P1, Volume 4, pages 2034-2035; 2054-2055.
I confess Bryan I called the CBS about you and the servants you rule over so take me to court not Nick. (You might get a quantity discount from your lawyer.) The document below has never been seen by other SAFGA members outside the Wankermate circle. The original document was stolen from the State Computer early in 2113. This one was copied from files you sent to me. You were part of Nicks team investigating my issues. Why didn’t you disclose it when asked by State Council? Your lawyer told me yesterday it could be contempt of court and I could go to gaol if I don’t take it down. Send your police mates around and you may be able to have me arrested for receiving stolen goods. I bet your mates in the Firearms Branch send you to voice mail next time you call.
15The statement under the heading “the World Wide Wanker” on 3 September 2014:[217]
[217] Exhibit P1, Volume 4, page 2056.
WITNESSES WANTED
Mr Stokes can get up to $250,000 from me in the Supreme Court if I can’t prove he is a liar, a cheat, a bully and he intimidates me and other people for illegal or immoral purposes.
(evidence contributions welcome)
(discretion advised)
If Mr Stokes gets $250,000 because I call him names what should my damages claim be? He has got an old boat lying around he does not use and I might be able to do a deal.
16The statement under the heading “Serious Criminal and Civil Concerns” on 15 and 17 September 2014:[218]
[218] Exhibit P1, Volume 4, page 2078.
The land at Monarto is the only secure shooting ground in reach of Adelaide. If S.A.F.G.A. sell it to Stokes, Dawes and Torresan consortium they will get Centrals shut down so S.A.F.G.A. members have no other option but to shoot at Rocky Gully. You have got to realise you are dealing with self centred gents without principles who had my firearms licence suspended illegally simply to advance their take over bid of S.A.F.G.A.
…
These people are just running the State council around in circles so they have not got the time to correct what happened to me. The criminal aspects of which are now being investigated. S.A.F.G.A. has never had a financial problem or major issue with the management before the illegal actions to remove me and the cover up to prevent the exposure of illegal activity. The first priority should be, get rid of any criminals.
17The statement under the headings “Home – Wankalinks” and “Serious Criminal and Civil Concerns” on 15, 17 and 19 September 2014:[219]
[219] Exhibit P1, Volume 4, pages 2084-2085.
If you were a member of S.A.F.G.A. I would not have stood by and let this happen to you but I consider myself Honourable and I am prepared to stand up against bullies and criminals.
I have found out most members of S.A.F.G.A. no longer consider their pride important to them and that saddens me.
If you are one of these gutless bastards who expected Stokes’s defamation action to shut me down take note.
…
I AM NO LONGER FOOLING AROUND. I have the money I need to fight Mr Stokes and everything I get out of current court cases will be used if needed for legal costs against people that have supported the actions against me and contributed to the destruction of my family unit.
18The statement under the heading “Serious Civil and Criminal Concerns” on 20 September 2014:[220]
If you are one of these gutless bastards who expected Stokes’s defamation action to shut me down take note.
…
My whistleblowers action against Bryan in the Equal Opportunity Tribunal will ensure he wont be happy to support you financialy.
You have been told his lawyer says I don’t have a case. Have you got the guts to bet your house on Bryan? Shafting me is not as much fun these days, is it?
Lawyers get $300 to $500 per hour. Electricians get only $50 to $100 per hour but electricians don’t have to make maggots look like men.
19The unsolicited text message from Mr Ragless sent to Mr Stokes on 10 September 2014 at 12.17 am stating:[221]
Resign from safga And drop action against me by five pm thursday or [I] will send you broke. Your move.
[220] Exhibit P1, Volume 5, page 2099.
[221] Exhibit P1, Volume 4, page 2070.
Other circumstances of aggravation included Mr Ragless’ deliberate efforts to attract people from outside the shooting community to the Website, to maintain readers and his very personal references to Mr Stokes’ past. These references included undermining Mr Stokes with respect to activities that he enjoyed, such as the accusations of cheating at the Port Lincoln Tuna Classic, and drawing attention to events that Mr Stokes would rather forget, such as his assault in 1988.
I infer from the evidence I heard that the Website was read by members of the shooting community outside of South Australia, for example, Mr Ragless identified a number of his 49 Facebook friends that were involved in the shooting community outside of South Australia. As Mr Ragless placed a hyperlink to the Website on his Facebook page, I infer some of those friends were directed to and read the Website.[222]
[222] T1098-1099; Exhibits P62, P64.
Mr Ragless said that he told people at FGA about the Website and some of the people he spoke to about it were from Melbourne. A few people asked Mr Stokes about it during the Oceania event in April 2016 (Mr Stokes said this was “pretty much an international event”) and Mrs Dawes gave evidence that people at interstate events spoke to her about it.
Mr Stokes submitted he was entitled to an award of aggravated damages of at least $50,000.
Mr Stokes has established that Mr Ragless’ defence was improper and unjustifiable. Mr Ragless indicated that he will not apologise and has persisted in his accusations against Mr Stokes and his insistence on the truth of the published imputations despite a lack of evidentiary support. Mr Ragless admitted that he wants to lower Mr Stokes’ self-esteem, wants to cause criminal proceedings to be brought against Mr Stokes, and agreed that legal action was a weapon to get what he wanted.
In the circumstances, an award of aggravated damages is appropriate.
Interest
Mr Stokes is entitled to interest on damages from the date of publication. Mr Stokes submitted that the date of the final publication on 31 March 2014[223] should be taken as the date for the purpose of calculations. He further submitted that the principles which underpin an award of interest warrant a rate equivalent to the post judgment rate provided for in r 261 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA), being 7.5 per cent. The commentary to r 261(3) regarding pre‑judgment interest states “For Pre-judgment interest see [SCA s 30C.20] and [SCSR 208]”. The appropriate rate for the calculating of interest on pre‑judgment economic losses is a matter for determination by the Court. Rule 208 of the Supreme Court Civil Supplementary Rules 2014 (SA) provides that, as a guide only, the Court may calculate interest as follows: “in respect of the period from 1 July to 31 December or any part of that period in a year, the cash rate of interest last set by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) prior to 1 July plus 4 per cent”.
[223] Material was published until 13 April, but the last original publication was 31 March.
The RBA published interest rate as at July 2017 was 1.5 per cent. Adding 4 per cent to this rate results in a pre-judgment interest rate of 5.5 per cent.
Permanent injunction
Mr Stokes contended that the Court can have no confidence that Mr Ragless will cease making defamatory publications. Mr Ragless agreed in cross‑examination that he vowed to never give up.[224]
[224] T1073.
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.

There was no evidence of any diminution of Mr Stokes’ reputation and the regard in which he is held by his shooting colleagues or others. As Mr Stokes said, other than the period late 2012 to 2014, he is now well supported and “the vast majority of” those who once supported Mr Ragless have realised that “I’m not the evil person I have been portrayed as and the support for Mr Ragless has practically disappeared”.[233]
[233] T255.
The award of general damages I consider bears an appropriate and rational relationship to the harm sustained by Mr Stokes is an award of $70,000.
The award of aggravated damages I consider reflects the improper and unjustified defence of these proceedings and the other conduct which has aggravated the injury to Mr Stokes is $20,000.
Mr Stokes is entitled to interest on the award of damages of $90,000 from the date of the final publication on 31 March 2014, calculated at a rate of 5.5 per cent per annum.
Finally, having regard to the history of this matter, Mr Stokes is entitled to the permanent injunction he seeks. I make the following orders:
1Mr Ragless is restrained from publishing words stating or suggesting that Mr Stokes:
(1)    had knowingly engaged in corrupt practices;
(2)    had acted illegally, or at least in such a way as to warrant investigation by the South Australia Police;
(3)    had engaged in the unconscionable practice of making baseless threats of legal action to silence or intimidate persons who might be sympathetic to Mr Ragless’ concerns;
(4)    was a dishonourable person;
(5)    had attempted to use Mr Ragless’ ill-health in order to retain, or otherwise advance, his own position at the South Australian Field & Game Association (Southern Branch) Inc;
(6)    had abused his position while serving as a committee member of the South Australian Field & Game Association (Southern Branch) Inc;
(7)    had acted illegally;
(8)    had improperly conspired to have Mr Ragless’ gun licence suspended;
(9)    was prepared to engage in corrupt practices;
(10) was a bully;
(11) was a bigot;
(12) had engaged in criminal behaviour, or in the alternative, behaviour warranting the issue of criminal charges;
(13) had engaged in illegal and immoral conduct;
(14) had abused his position while serving as a committee member of the South Australian Field & Game Association (Southern Branch) Inc to engage in illegal or immoral conduct;
(15) was corrupt and part of a corrupt faction;
(16) had attempted to intimidate Mr Ragless;
(17) had a questionable past, namely was a person of ill repute, who had engaged in activities of dubious legality and/or morality;
(18) had engaged in illegal activities;
(19) was corrupt and part of a corrupt committee;
(20) had abused his position while serving as a committee member of the South Australian Field & Game Association (Southern Branch) Inc by engaging in corrupt practices;
(21) had attempted to steal property from the members of the South Australian Field & Game Association Inc;
(22) had abused his position while serving as a committee member of the South Australian Field & Game Association (Southern Branch) Inc to attempt to steal property from the members of the South Australian Field & Game Association Inc;
(23) was a gangster;
(24) was a drug runner;
(25) had convictions for tax evasion;
(26) was or had been a bootlegger, namely a person who had been involved in the clandestine and illegal manufacture, transportation or sale of prohibited substances;
(27) was a thug;
(28) was a criminal;
(29) was part of and involved with a group of criminals;
(30) was a liar;
(31) was a cheat;
(32) was a coward;
(33) was a bastard;
(34) had been convicted of an offence;
(35) had intimidated the members of the South Australian Field & Game Association Inc;
(36) was a thug and involved with a group of thugs;
(37) was the leader of a coup d’état, who had seized control of the South Australian Field & Game Association Inc by illegal means;
(38) was a hijacker and a member of a group of hijackers;
(39) had permitted lies to be published;
(40) has seized control of the South Australian Field & Game Association Inc by engaging in a program of deliberate false accusations and lies;
(41) was a thug and a member of a group of thugs;
(42) was a criminal and a member of a group of criminals;
(43) was a person who attempted to intimidate others.
2This order, with the endorsement required by r 225(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA), be served forthwith personally on Mr Ragless.
3The parties have liberty to apply for further orders and directions.
I will hear the parties as to costs.
Appendices
Appendix 1 – Sick ???? Who’s Sick

Appendix 2 – Article published in FGFA newsletter[234]
[234] Exhibit P2.

Appendix 3 – Mr Ragless’ email of 23 October 2012[235]
[235] Exhibit P1, Volume 1, p 77.

Appendix 4 – Mr Stokes’ email of 23 October 2012

Appendix 5 – Photograph of the medals in the bin