Stephens v West Australian Newspapers Ltd [1994] HCA 45

Stephens v West Australian Newspapers Ltd [1994] HCA 45

The implied constitutional freedom of political communication does not afford a defence in law to defamation unless the defendant can demonstrate it was unaware of the falsity of the material and did not publish recklessly, and publication was reasonable. The plea as drafted in paragraph 20A did not meet these conditions and is therefore bad in law. The plea of qualified privilege in paragraph 20B is not, in itself, bad in law, but is technically deficient and may require amendment; however, the issue of whether the publication occurred on an occasion of privilege is a question for the trial judge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Defamation Action / Case Stated (constitutional and Common Law Defences to Pleaded Defamation)
Outcome
Order answering the questions stated: Paragraph 20A is bad in law; Paragraph 20B is not bad in law (subject to technical deficiencies).
Legal Topics
['implied Freedom of Communication' 'qualified Privilege' 'fair Comment' 'representative Democracy' 'publication of Defamatory Matter' 'parliamentary Conduct' 'civil Liability']
['constitutional Law' 'defamation' 'media Law'] ['implied Freedom of Communication' 'qualified Privilege' 'fair Comment' 'representative Democracy' 'publication of Defamatory Matter' 'parliamentary Conduct' 'civil Liability']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Defamation Action / Case Stated (constitutional and Common Law Defences to Pleaded Defamation)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the implied freedom of political communication protects the defendant from a claim of defamation regarding the plaintiffs' conduct as parliamentarians" "Whether publication of articles about parliamentarians' conduct is protected by qualified privilege" 'Whether the requirements for qualified privilege in publication to general public are met' 'Distinction between comment and fact in defamation defences']

Ratio Decidendi

The implied constitutional freedom of political communication does not afford a defence in law to defamation unless the defendant can demonstrate it was unaware of the falsity of the material and did not publish recklessly, and publication was reasonable. The plea as drafted in paragraph 20A did not meet these conditions and is therefore bad in law. The plea of qualified privilege in paragraph 20B is not, in itself, bad in law, but is technically deficient and may require amendment; however, the issue of whether the publication occurred on an occasion of privilege is a question for the trial judge.

Court Disposition

Order answering the questions stated: Paragraph 20A is bad in law; Paragraph 20B is not bad in law (subject to technical deficiencies).

Orders

  • ['Question (a): Is the defence pleaded in paragraph 20A bad in law? Answer: Yes.' 'Question (b): Is the defence pleaded in paragraph 20B bad in law? Answer: No.']