Wallace v Alan Jones - [2001] NSWSC 1085

CITATION: Wallace v Alan Jones & Anor [2001] NSWSC 1085

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20778 OF 2001

HEARING DATE(S): 16 November 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 November 2001

PARTIES :

DEBORAH WALLACE
(Plaintiff)
v
ALAN JONES
(First Defendant)
RADIO 2UE SYDNEY PTY LTD
(Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J

COUNSEL :
S Littlemore Q.C.
(Plaintiff)
T Blackburn
(Defendants)

SOLICITORS:
Walter Madden Jenkins
(Plaintiff)
Corrs Chambers Westgarth
(Defendant)

CATCHWORDS: Radio broadcasts - imputations - capacity - form - difference in substance - "corrupt" - "dishonestly" - "sincere"

CASES CITED: Drummoyne Municipal Council v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1991) 21 NSWLR 135
Krahe v TCN Channel Nine Pty Limited (1986) 4 NSWLR 536
Ma Ching Kwan v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd (Court of Appeal, unreported, 30 July 1998)
McCormick v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Limited (1989) 16 NSWLR 485
Morris v Newcastle Newspapers Pty Limited (1985) 1 NSWLR 260

DECISION: See paragraph 40

DLJ: 1

[2001] NSWSC 1085

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
common law division

Defamation list

20778 of 2001

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

Friday 30 November 2001

DEBORAH WALLACE

(Plaintiff)

ALAN JONES

(First Defendant)

RADIO 2UE SYDNEY PTY LTD
(Second Defendant)

Judgment (Radio broadcasts – imputations – capacity – form – difference in substance – “corrupt” – “dishonestly” – “sincere”)

1 By a Statement of Claim filed on 14 September 2001 the plaintiff sues the defendants in respect of five broadcasts (the tapes of which I have heard).

2 The first broadcast was at about 7.10am on 2 April 2001; a transcript of it is the First Schedule to the pleading. The subject matter of the broadcast, in general terms, is drug crime at Cabramatta and a change of a computer entry at Cabramatta Police Station. Mr Jones is interviewing a Mr Ross Treyvaud. Some pertinent passages are as follows:

“Jones: …..the exact words of it. A copy here of the note written into the system by Bradley Element, a young constable, on February 19, saying the deputy principal of Cabramatta High told police that at 3:00pm five students had warned of a number of males waiting outside the school gates to bash them. So if someone is denying this has happened, surely they are telling lies?

Treyvaud: Yes there seems to be something sinister going on here Alan.

Jones: Well. Let me take that point of sinister. The day after I raised this on my program, the entry on the police computer system was quote/unquote updated by the 2IC out there, Detective Inspector Deborah Wallace. And my information is the purpose of updating the narrative on the police computer system, and putting in her interpretation, was that her version of events would supercede the original documentation. And I am asking you as the crime fighter out there, what chance have you got of succeeding at Cabramatta if police and others, even their superiors, are prepared to lie about facts?

Treyvaud: Well unfortunately, that is often the case out…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Wallace v Alan Jones

Details

AGLC: Wallace v Alan Jones [2001] NSWSC 1085
Case: [2001] NSWSC 1085
Decision Date: 30 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Wallace v Alan Jones, the plaintiff sought to challenge defamatory statements made by the defendant during a live radio broadcast. The defendant, Alan Jones, a well-known radio broadcaster, made comments about the plaintiff, implying corruption and dishonesty. The dispute arose from these broadcasts, which the plaintiff claimed were defamatory and damaging to their reputation. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, which had jurisdiction over the case due to its connection to radio communications.

The court was tasked with determining whether the comments made by Alan Jones were defamatory and, if so, whether they were capable of being considered a difference in substance from the imputations. The plaintiff argued that the words "corrupt" and "dishonestly" were defamatory and that the term "sincere" was a defence that Jones had not successfully demonstrated. The defence contended that the comments were made in a sincere attempt to report on matters of public interest and were not defamatory.

The court considered the nature of the broadcasts, the context in which the comments were made, and the potential impact on the plaintiff's reputation. It found that the imputations made by Jones were indeed defamatory but concluded that the defence of "difference in substance" applied. The court determined that the comments, while defamatory, were not substantially different from the imputations made in previous broadcasts. As a result, the defence of "difference in substance" was upheld, and the plaintiff's case was dismissed. The court emphasised the importance of context and the defence of "difference in substance" in cases involving defamatory statements made during radio broadcasts.

Orders