Sands v Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd & Anor

[2010] SASC 202

Supreme Court of South Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Defamation
2. › Defences
3. › Justification
4. › Imputation of suspicion of criminal offence
5. › Whether reasonable grounds to suspect established on balance of probabilities
6. › Standard of proof — Briginshaw principle
1. Defamation
2. › Imputation
3. › Meaning of publication
4. › Whether bare reference to person as 'suspect' conveys imputation of reasonable grounds for suspicion
5. › Distinction between suspicion and reasonable grounds for suspicion
1. Defamation
2. › Privilege
3. › Absolute privilege
4. › Fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings
5. › Whether report of part of proceedings before completion attracts privilege
6. › Whether report contemporaneous
7. › Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA), s 6
1. Defamation
2. › Privilege
3. › Qualified privilege
4. › Common law defence of fair and accurate report
5. › Malice
6. › Whether dominant purpose other than reporting established

Quick Take

A bare reference to a person as a 'suspect' in a media report of court proceedings does not necessarily convey an imputation that the suspicion is on reasonable grounds; context including the report being of contested court proceedings and judicial concern about the original allegation may negate any such imputation. The repetition rule has limited application where a publication is a report of allegations made in inter partes court proceedings and the reporter does not adopt those allegations. The defence of fair and accurate report is available for reports of part of proceedings before their completion, and a report need not summarise the entire proceeding to be fair and accurate.