Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Reading

[2004] NSWCA 411

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Defamation
2. › Jury trial
3. › Functions of judge and jury
4. › Power to discharge jury
5. › Whether trial judge had power to discharge jury after jury corrected initial misunderstanding
6. › Whether power properly exercised
7. › Defamation Act 1974 (NSW), s 7A
1. Defamation
2. › Jury trial
3. › Functions of judge and jury
4. › Elucidation of jury answers
5. › Power of trial judge to seek clarification of jury answers
6. › Whether seeking elucidation inconsistent with s 7A of Defamation Act 1974 (NSW)
1. Defamation
2. › Jury trial
3. › Appellate review of jury verdict
4. › Whether imputation not defamatory
5. › Scope of appellate review
6. › Whether conclusion that no reasonable jury could reach
7. › Constitutional role of jury as arbiter of community standards
8. › Defamation Act 1974 (NSW), s 7A(3)
1. Defamation
2. › Jury trial
3. › Appellate review of jury verdict
4. › Television broadcast
5. › Transient publication
6. › Effect of rejection of other imputations on construction of remaining imputation

Quick Take

A trial judge has inherent power to discharge a jury at any time before the verdict is accepted and recorded, but that power should not be exercised where the jury's initial confusion has been dispelled by redirection. Supreme Court Rules Pt 34 r 8A does not confer power to discharge a jury. On appellate review of a jury's finding that an imputation is not defamatory, the court must approach the case on the basis most favourable to the respondent, and the jury cannot be taken to have given to the imputation any meaning it rejected when finding other imputations were not conveyed. The transient nature of a television broadcast reinforces the impressionistic nature of the jury's exercise.