The right of newspapers to report court proceedings was stressed in the ACT Supreme Court yesterday in the over-turning of a $10,500 award for defamation.
Constable Daniel Peter Edwards sued Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd, publisher of The Canberra Times, over a court report. He won his case in the Magistrates Court before Magistrate Peter Dingwall earlier this year. That was overturned yesterday by Justice John Gallop.
It is only the second time in 28 years that a media defendant has won a defamation case in the ACT. The Canberra Times won an action in May this year. The last media defendant to win before that was in 1964.
Constable Edwards sued over a report in April, 1989, about evidence he had given in a committal hearing. The article described him as not being sure of some of the items he had found in raid on a house in Ainslie.
Justice John Gallop quoted legal authority on the importance of giving protection to fair and accurate newspaper reports of court proceedings.
“”Everyone cannot be on court,” he said. “”It is for the public benefit that they should be informed of what takes place substantially as if they were present.”
The newspaper report did not have to be verbatim, provided it gave a correct and just impression of what happened in court. There was some leeway: a report could contain errors yet still be a fair and accurate report. The inaccuracy had to be substantial to defeat a defence of privilege. An ordinary reader did not read a newspaper with an excessive degree of care, as would a lawyer.
Justice Gallop held the article was a fair and accurate report and gave a correct impression of Constable Edwards’s inadequate preparation for the purposes of giving evidence, that he could not recall or did not know the answer to the questions asked, that he had become quite confused and forgetful.
Justice Gallop also ruled that Magistrate Dingwall had made another error. He had found the article conveyed the imputation that Constable Edwards had been slovenly or negligent in the performance of the duties assigned to him in relation to the search of the premises at Ainslie. Justice Gallop said this imputation had not been pleaded and did not fairly arise from the article. The article only dealt with Constable Edwards’s performance in court. Ordinary newspaper readers could not be expected to know what a policeman’s duties were with respect to searches.
Justice Gallop said Magistrate Dingwall heard the case on February 28 and March 1, 1991 and gave judgment 10 months later in January this year . Justice Gallop heard the appeal last Thursday and gave judgment six days later.
He said he would hear submissions about costs. Evidence in the Magistrates Court suggested that the bulk of Constable Edwards’s costs were being borne by the ACT Police Association. The total costs of the case for both sides would be in the region of $40,000. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, the loser pays the bulk of the winner’s costs.