The public document defence under s 28 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Vic) requires that the document be formally 'issued' by a government officer and that its purpose be 'for the information of the public'; a letter provided by a Minister to a statutory authority for dissemination to customers does not satisfy these requirements where the dominant purpose is justification rather than information. For internet publications, the reasonableness assessment under s 30(1)(c) encompasses both the initial uploading and the continued maintenance of material online, and subjective factors including the publisher's state of mind are relevant to reasonableness under s 30(3), not confined to the separate malice inquiry under s 30(4). The grapevine effect in defamation damages does not require evidence that recipients actually repeated the defamatory words; evidence that they discussed the publication with others in the community is sufficient.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 29 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 29 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.