A judicial officer is not barred from bringing defamation proceedings with respect to criticism of the performance of judicial functions (majority view). The principle of judicial immunity does not preclude a defendant from pleading a defence of truth by reference to the judicial officer's decisions. However, a re-litigation by a different tribunal of fact of the question whether a judicial officer made legal errors would constitute an abuse of process. Discussion of a judicial officer's discharge of judicial function in a particular case is not a discussion concerning political or governmental matters for the purposes of the implied freedom of political communication. A significant minority (Basten JA, McCallum J) would have held that policy considerations preclude any cause of action in defamation at the suit of a judicial officer with respect to statements relating to judicial conduct or capacity.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 60 later cases that cite this judgment.
9 of the 60 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.