A new uniform defamation regime now operates in Australia. This article canvasses the Uniform Defamation Laws (UDLs), focusing on the defence of qualified privilege and its capacity to protect mass media publications in the public interest. Drawing on case law and analysis of the key approaches to statutory privilege, the article evaluates the current approach to statutory qualified privilege. Taking account of observations in O'Hara v Sims (2008, 2009) about the operation of qualified privilege, it questions whether the UDL statutory qualified privilege will ultimately censor publications in the public interest and restrict the application of the qualified privilege defence.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbbottA.1988, The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
2.
AbbottA.1993‘The Sociology of Work and Occupations’, Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 19, pp. 187–209.
3.
BakerR.2003, ‘The Ordinary Reasonable Person in Defamation Law’, Communications Law Bulletinvol. 22, no. 4, pp. 20–23.
4.
BellP.2006, ‘Defamation and Reputation in the Australian Press’, Australian Journalism Review, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 125–41.
5.
BreitR.2008, ‘How the Law Defines Journalism’, Australian Journalism Review, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 13–25.
6.
ButlerD.RodrickS. (2004) Australian Media Law, 2nd ed., Law Book Company, Sydney.
7.
CoadJ.2007, ‘Reynolds and Public Interest: What about Truth and Human Rights?’Entertainment Law Review, no. 3, pp. 75–85.
8.
DentChrisKenyonAndrew T.2004, ‘Defamation Law's Chilling Effect: A Comparative Content Analysis of Australian and US Newspapers’, Media & Arts Law Review, vol. 9, no. 2, p. 89.
9.
GeorgePatrick2007, Defamation Law in Australia, LexisNexis, Sydney.
10.
GilloolyM.2004, The Third Man: Reform of the Australasian Defamation Defences, Federation Press, Sydney.
11.
KenyonA.2004, ‘Lange and Reynolds Qualified Privilege: Australian and English Defamation Law and Practice’, Melbourne University Law Review, no. 27, pp. 406–37.
12.
KuxY.C.2006, ‘Notes from a Defamation Seminar’, Gazette of Law and Journalism, 25 May.
13.
SchultzJ.1998, Reviving the Fourth Estate: Democracy, Accountability and the Media, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne.
14.
ScottA.2007, ‘The Same River Twice? Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe’, Communications Law, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 52–59.
15.
TobinT.K.SextonM.G.2007, Australian Defamation Law and Practice (electronic resource), Butterworths, Sydney.
16.
University of New South Wales2004, ‘The Proposed Defence of Honest and Reasonable Opinion’, National Defamation Research Project, University of New South Wales, Sydney.
17.
Wahl-JorgensenK.HanitzschT.2008, The Handbook of Journalism Studies, Routledge, New York.
18.
Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309.
19.
Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden [2002] NSWCA 419.
20.
Austin v Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1985) 3 NSWLR 354.
21.
Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Limited [2004] HCA 5.
22.
Coleman v Power (2004) HCA 39 (1 September 2004).
23.
David Russell Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) [1997] HCA 25 (8 July 1997).
24.
Horrocks v Lowe [1975] AC 135.
25.
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v O'Shane [2005] NSWCA 164.
26.
Morgan v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (No 2) (1991) 23 NSWLR 374.
27.
O'Hara v Sims [2008] QSC 301 (3 November).
28.
O'Hara v Sims [2009] QCA 186.
29.
Parmiter v Coupland and Anor (1840) 6 M & W 104.
30.
Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Chesterton [2009] HCA 16 (22 April).
31.
Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 2 AC 127.
32.
Sattin v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (1996) 39 NSWLR 32.
33.
Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237.
34.
Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times (1994) 182 CLR 104.
35.
Youssoupoff v Metro, Goldwyn Mayer (1934) 50 TLR 581.
