QUEENSLAND. Defamation-LibelPrivilege-Defamatory matter published in newspaper-Man-
agement of gold-mining company-Publication " in good faith for the public good "--Information to interested persons-Functions of judge and jury-The Criminal Code (Q.) (63 Vict. No. 9), secs. 377 (3),* (5),* 379*-The Defamation April 16-18.
Law of Queensland 1889 (Q.) (53 Vict. No. 12), sec. 9*.
In a daily newspaper owned by the defendant company the following matter May 23.
appeared under the heading "Letters to the Editor" Golden Mile, Cracow.-Sir,-As a shareholder in the above company, I wish to record my disapproval at the high-handed and, I believe, illegal manner in which share. holders have been treated by the management with regard to results of gold obtained from the crushings which have been in progress, and officially reported in the daily press, during the past three months. The high official assay values * The Defamation Law of Queensland
information to the person to whom it 1899, by sec. 9, provides that the
is made with respect to some subject unlawful publication of defamatory
as to which that person has, or is matter is an actionable wrong."
believed, on reasonable grounds, by The Criminal Code (Q.) provides,
the person making the publication to by sec. 377: "It is a lawful excuse
have, such an interest in knowing the for the publication of defamatory
truth as to make his conduct in mak- (3) If the publica-
ing the publication reasonable under tion is made in good faith for the pro-
the circumstances." By sec. 379: tection of the interests of the person
Whether any defamatory matter is making the publication, or of some
or is not relevant to any other matter, other person, or for the public good
and whether the public discussion of (5) If the publication is made
any subject is or is not for the public in good faith for the purpose of giving
recorded from time to time indicated very profitable returns to shareholders, who naturally have been looking for a pronouncement of results from the management, especially as it is known that gold has been sent and also taken away from the field by both a Sydney and Brisbane director. However, nothing is known of the value of this gold by the shareholders who have provided the sinews of -Yours, &., Bushranger." In an action for libel brought by the Brisbane director of the mining company against the defendant company and the printer of its newspaper, it appeared that, for the purpose of giving information to its shareholders and the public generally, the mining company and its directors had issued reports of its operations, assays and yields to the Stock Exchange and published them in the daily newspapers, including the newspaper of the defendant company. The trial Judge directed the jury that the letter was not capable of the meaning that the plaintiff had deprived his company of gold in…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Telegraph Newspaper Co Ltd v Bedford
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Telegraph Newspaper Co Ltd v Bedford [1934] HCA 15
Case
[1934] HCA 15
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of *Telegraph Newspaper Co Ltd v Bedford* involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia concerning a defamation action. The appellant, Telegraph Newspaper Co Ltd, published a letter to the editor which the respondent, Randolph Bedford, a director of a gold-mining company, alleged was defamatory. The core of the dispute centred on whether the published letter contained defamatory imputations against the respondent and whether the newspaper company had a lawful excuse for its publication under Queensland's Criminal Code.
The legal issues before the High Court were twofold. Firstly, whether the trial judge erred in ruling that the published letter was incapable of conveying the meaning that the respondent had committed a criminal act by misappropriating the company's gold. Secondly, whether the trial judge correctly directed the jury that the publication was protected by the defences of "good faith for the public good" or "good faith for the purpose of giving information to interested persons" under sections 377(3) and 377(5) of the Queensland Criminal Code, respectively.
A majority of the High Court (Gavan Duffy C.J., Rich and Evatt JJ., with Starke J. dissenting on the first issue) held that the trial judge had erred in both respects. The Court found that the published letter was capable of conveying a meaning that the respondent had committed a criminal act, and therefore, this question should have been left to the jury. Furthermore, the majority concluded that neither section 377(3) nor 377(5) of the Criminal Code afforded a defence in this instance. The reasoning was that the newspaper company had not made sufficient inquiries to establish good faith, and the publication's breadth exceeded what was reasonably necessary for the occasion, particularly given the lack of verification of the letter's contents.
Consequently, the High Court ordered a new trial. The Court's decision underscored the importance of the jury's role in determining the meaning of defamatory statements and the strict requirements for establishing defences under the Queensland Criminal Code, particularly concerning good faith and the reasonable extent of publication.