A media watchdog program criticising journalistic standards publishes on an occasion of qualified privilege, but the defence will fail if the conclusions drawn are illogical, unfair and unreasonable, even if honestly held. However, the same conclusions may be protected by the defence of fair comment if they are expressions of opinion based on facts sufficiently stated, relating to a matter of public interest, and are opinions an honest commentator could honestly hold. The distinction between the reasonableness requirement for qualified privilege and the fairness requirement for fair comment is critical: qualified privilege requires that conclusions follow logically, fairly and reasonably from the information obtained, while fair comment asks only whether any fair-minded person could honestly hold the opinion expressed.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.