SANDS v CHANNEL SEVEN ADELAIDE PTY LTD & ANOR

139 Pages·2009·0.85 MB·English

by  Dwayne Wilkinson

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply
to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment to ensure that the intended use of that material does not
breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court in which it was generated.

SANDS v CHANNEL SEVEN ADELAIDE PTY LTD & ANOR

[2009] SASC 215

Judgment of The Honourable Justice Bleby

27 July 2009

DEFAMATION
Action for defamation against commercial television station (the first defendant) and public
broadcaster (the second defendant) – first defendant broadcast promotion for story on
current affairs program about Member of Parliament using tax-payer funds for an overseas
trip with the plaintiff – promotion described the plaintiff as “a suspect in a murder case” –
Member of Parliament obtained injunction in District Court restraining broadcast of
program – second defendant reported on the District Court proceedings in three radio
broadcasts and in an internet article – second defendant’s publications included reference to
the plaintiff having been a murder suspect.
Plaintiff’s claims against both defendants dismissed.
DEFAMATION - STATEMENTS AMOUNTING TO DEFAMATION
Whether first defendant’s promotion conveys the imputation that the plaintiff is a suspect in
a murder case and that there are reasonable grounds to so suspect him – whether plaintiff
required to elect as to imputation now alleged – consideration of principles to be applied in
determining the imputation that the words bear – words do bear the pleaded imputation.
DEFAMATION - JUSTIFICATION
Whether first defendant’s plea of justification made out – consideration of what constitutes
suspicion – consideration of factors giving rise to suspicion on reasonable grounds –
whether plaintiff was in a sexual relationship with murder victim – whether plaintiff’s
whereabouts at the time of the murder unexplained – whether plaintiff lied to police about
his whereabouts and relationship with victim – whether plaintiff sought to rely on false alibi
– whether plaintiff spoke to victim on day of murder – justification defence made out.

Plaintiff: DERICK JOHN SANDS Counsel: MR P HEYWOOD-SMITH QC WITH MR P QUINN -
Solicitor: SWAN LAWYERS
First Defendant: CHANNEL SEVEN ADELAIDE PTY LTD Counsel: MR W HOUGHTON QC
WITH MR T DUGGAN - Solicitor: KELLY & CO
Second Defendant: AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION Counsel: MR R
WHITINGTON QC WITH MR S DOYLE - Solicitor: COWELL CLARKE
Hearing Date/s: 16/02/2009 to 05/03/2009
File No/s: SCCIV-04-543
A
2

DEFAMATION - PRIVILEGE - QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE - IN GENERAL
Whether first defendant can rely on defence of extended qualified privilege - broadcast was
a communication to the general public on a government or political matter – whether
reference to the plaintiff as a murder suspect relevant or germane to the occasion of
qualified privilege – defence not made out.
DEFAMATION - STATEMENTS AMOUNTING TO DEFAMATION
Plaintiff pleaded that publications by second defendant conveyed the imputation that the
plaintiff “is and was” a murder suspect – plaintiff sought to rely on the substantially
different and less injurious imputation that the plaintiff was, in the past, a murder suspect –
each of second defendant’s publications used the past tense in referring to the plaintiff’s
status as a murder suspect – whether plaintiff confined to pleaded imputation – whether
publications convey imputation that plaintiff “is and was” a murder suspect – pleaded
imputation not made out.
Whether publication by second defendant conveyed the imputation that there were
reasonable grounds to suspect the plaintiff of murder – effect of repetition rule – whether
content and context suggest reasonable grounds – purpose of publication – publication did
not suggest that reasonable grounds existed.
DEFAMATION - PRIVILEGE - ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE -
STATEMENTS MADE IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Whether second defendant can rely on statutory defence of fair and accurate report of court
proceedings in respect of internet publication – what constitutes fair and accurate report –
whether reports were fair and accurate – what constitutes malice for purposes of internet
article – whether malice established – whether radio broadcasts were contemporaneous with
proceedings – radio broadcasts protected by defence in s 6 Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) – s
6 as in force on 19 May 2004 did not apply to internet publication – internet publication
protected by common law defence of fair and accurate report.
DEFAMATION - DAMAGES
Consideration of the basis upon which damages would have been assessed if plaintiff’s
claim had succeeded – purposes of damages award – whether plaintiff’s distress and hurt
feelings caused by publication of statements that he was a murder suspect or by his
involvement in political scandal – whether reliable evidence of loss of reputation – effect of
attempts at suppression on plaintiff’s desire for vindication – whether grounds for awarding
aggravated damages – whether plaintiff’s loss of employment caused by first defendant’s
publication or by other reasons.
EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY - HEARSAY - IN
GENERAL
Whether police officer could give evidence of the view he formed as a result of inquiries
made of persons not called as witnesses – whether hearsay evidence admissible to prove
that there were reasonable grounds to suspect the plaintiff of murder – whether rules of
evidence apply in the usual way to proof of pleaded facts said to constitute reasonable
grounds – question depended for its answer on inadmissible hearsay – question disallowed.
Admissibility of evidence of statements made by murder victim to witnesses about her
sexual relationship with the plaintiff – whether admissible to prove that the deceased was in
a sexual relationship with plaintiff – admissible as original evidence of the deceased’s state
of mind with respect to plaintiff but not as proof of sexual relationship.
3

EVIDENCE - FACTS EXCLUDED FROM PROOF - ON GROUNDS OF
PUBLIC POLICY - AFFAIRS AND DOCUMENTS OF STATE -
RELEVANT PRINCIPLES - CROWN PRIVILEGE
Whether police officer was required to answer certain questions about the murder
investigation and the use made of a sample of plaintiff’s DNA – whether public interest
immunity applies – whether police officer required to answer questions.
EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY - IN GENERAL
Admissibility of audio visual records of plaintiff’s interviews with police – whether records
relevant to plea of justification – whether s 47 Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Act
1998 (SA) prohibits admission into evidence of record of interview during which forensic
procedure was carried out – whether s 63 Telecommunications (Interception and Access)
Act 1979 (Cth) renders records inadmissible where explicit references to intercepted
material excised – whether police questioning in interview improper – records of interview
admitted into evidence.
PROCEDURE - SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA
- PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT - PLEADINGS
Application to withdraw admission in reply – time of death of murder victim – whether
time of death a matter within plaintiff’s knowledge – whether amendment likely to cause
significant delay or to jeopardise satisfactory and timely completion of trial – amendment
allowed.
EVIDENCE - DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE - STATUTORY
PROVISIONS AS TO STATEMENTS IN DOCUMENTS WHERE DIRECT
ORAL EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE - IN GENERAL
Admissibility of written statements made to police by plaintiff’s work colleagues – whether
requirements of s 34C Evidence Act 1929 (SA) satisfied – statements admitted.
EVIDENCE - DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE - STATUTORY
PROVISIONS RELATING TO BUSINESS RECORDS - IN GENERAL
Admissibility of report of forensic pathologist relating to murder victim – forensic
pathologist not called to give evidence – whether report admissible as a “business record”
under s 45A Evidence Act 1929 (SA).
Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) s 3A, s 6; Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Act 1998
(SA) s 26, s 47, s 48; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 34C, s 34D, s 45A, s 59J, s 69A;
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (Cth) s 63; Wrongs Act 1936 (SA)
s 3A, s 4, s 6; Wrongs Act Amendment Act (No 2) 1983 (SA) s 4; Defamation Act 2005
(SA) s 4, s 25, Sch 1; Wrongs Act Amendment Act 1975 (SA); Industrial and Employee
Relations Act 1994 (SA) Ch 3, Pt 6, s 109; Industrial and Employee Relations
(Harmonisation) Amendment Act 1997 (SA) s 4(4); Supreme Court Rules 1987 (SA) r
54.04; Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 63, referred to.
Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234; Mirror Newspapers Ltd v Harrison (1982)
149 CLR 293; Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520;
Bashford v Information Australia (Newsletters) Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 366; John Fairfax
Publications Pty Ltd v Obeid (2005) 64 NSWLR 485; Grain Elevators Board (Victoria) v
Shire of Dunmunkle (1946) 73 CLR 70; Commissioner of Stamps (South Australia) v
Telegraph Investment Company Pty Ltd (1995) 184 CLR 453; Ex parte Terrill; Re
Consolidated Press Ltd (1937) 37 SR (NSW) 255; Kimber v The Press Association Ltd
4

[1893] 1 QB 65; Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1; R v Matthews (1990) 58 SASR 19,
applied.
Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd [1979] AC 440; John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v
Police Tribunal of New South Wales (1986) 5 NSWLR 465; Hounslow v Woodward [2007]
WASC 27, distinguished.
Channel Seven Adelaide v S, DJ (2007) 248 LSJS 75; S, DJ v Channel Seven Adelaide Pty
Ltd (2008) 253 LSJS 468; S, DJ v Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd [2008] SASC 229;
Sands v Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd (2005) 91 SASR 466; Channel Seven Adelaide Pty
Ltd v S, DJ (2006) 94 SASR 296; Rakhimov v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2001]
NSWSC 10; Jackson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 36; Whelan v John
Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1988) 12 NSWLR 148; Shah v Standard Chartered Bank [1999] QB
241; Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2003] EMLR 11; Farquhar v Bottom [1980] 2
NSWLR 380; Chakravarti v Advertiser Newspapers Ltd (1998) 193 CLR 519; Radio 2UE
Sydney Pty Ltd v Parker (1992) 29 NSWLR 448; TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd v Mahony (1993)
32 NSWLR 397; Homes v Thorpe [1925] SASR 286; George v Rockett (1990) 170 CLR
104; Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309; Manock v Advertiser News-Weekend Publishing Co Ltd
(2004) 88 SASR 495; Stern v Piper [1997] QB 123; Wake v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd
[1973] 1 NSWLR 43; John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Rivkin (2003) 77 ALJR 1657;
Waterhouse v Broadcasting Station 2GB Pty Ltd (1985) 1 NSWLR 58; Bunker v James
(1980) 26 SASR 286; Anderson v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (1970) 72 SR (NSW) 313;
Horrocks v Lowe [1975] AC 135; Roberts v Bass (2002) 212 CLR 1; Carson v John
Fairfax & Sons Ltd (1993) 178 CLR 44; Hamilton v Clifford [2004] EWHC 1542 (QB);
Walsh v Loughnan [1991] 2 VR 351; Shaaban Bin Hussien v Chong Fook Kam [1970] AC
942; R v Heaney [1992] 2 VR 531; Police v Beck (2001) 79 SASR 98; Manley v Tucs
(1985) 40 SASR 1; R v TC Lavelle [1978] Crim LJ 105; Iskra v Police (2003) 84 SASR
586; Southern Equities Corporation Ltd (in liq) v Arthur Andersen & Co (reg) (No 11)
(2002) 82 SASR 63; Walton v The Queen (1989) 166 CLR 283, discussed.
Sands v Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd (Unreported, Supreme Court of South Australia,
Judge Bowen Pain, 8 November 2004); Hamilton v Clifford [2004] EWHC 1542 (QB); S,
DJ v Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd [2008] SASC 229; Polly Peck (Holdings) PLC v
Trelford [1986] QB 1000; Advertiser-News Weekend Publishing Co Ltd v Manock (2005)
91 SASR 206; Jones v Skelton [1963] 1 WLR 1362; Jones v Skelton [1963] SR (NSW) 644;
Slatyer v Daily Telegraph Newspaper Co Ltd (1908) 6 CLR 1; Keogh v Incorporated
Dental Hospital of Ireland (1910) 2 Ir R 577; Lang v Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v;
Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 1239; Middle East Airlines Airliban SAL v
Sungravure Pty Ltd [1974] 1 NSWLR 323; Hussien v Chong Fook Kam [1970] AC 942;
Queensland Bacon Pty Ltd v Rees (1966) 115 CLR 266; Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178
CLR 193; Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v Draper (2004) 234 LSJS 15; Watkin v Hall
(1868) LR 3 QB 396; Truth (NZ) Ltd v Holloway [1961] NZLR 22; Ronald v Harper
(1910) 11 CLR 63; Bik v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1979] 2 NSWLR 679; Buck v Jones
[2002] NSWCA 8; Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Comalco (1986) 12 FCR 510;
Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Heggie [2001] NSWCA 257; Yoon Shin Lee v Bok Chae-Sang
Cha [2005] NSWCA 279; Bunker v James (1980) 26 SASR 286; Smith v Harris [1996] 2
VR 335; Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417; McPherson v McPherson [1936] AC 177; Thom v
Associated Newspapers Ltd (1964) 64 SR (NSW) 376; Anderson v Nationwide News Pty
Ltd (1970) 72 SR (NSW) 313; Godfrey v Henderson (1944) 44 SR (NSW) 447; Oldfield v
Keogh (1941) 41 SR (NSW) 206; Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (2002)
212 CLR 1; Clark v Ainsworth (1996) 40 NSWLR 463; Cooke v Wood (Unreported,
Supreme Court of Victoria Court of Appeal, 11 December 1997, Ormiston, Charles and
Batt JJA); Bickel v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1981] 2 NSWLR 474; Dow Jones and
Company Inc v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575; Al Amoudi v Brisard [2007] 1 WLR 113;
McArdle v Egan (1934) 150 LT 412; McArdle v Egan (1934) 150 LT 412; Tepper v Kelly
(1988) 47 SASR 271; Conway v Rimmer [1968] AC 910; Medical Board of South Australia
(2000) 76 SASR 242; Adelaide Brighton Cement Ltd v State of South Australia (1999) 75
SASR 209; Alister v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 404; Woodroffe v National Crime
Authority (1999) 107 A Crim R 384; Attorney-General for New South Wales v Stuart
(1994) 34 NSWLR 667; McDermott v The King (1948) 76 CLR 501; R v Pritchard [1991]
1 VR 84; R v Wills (1985) 39 SASR 35; R v O’Neill (1988) 48 SASR 51; ACN 007 528 207
Pty Ltd (in liq) v Bird Cameron (Reg) (2003) 231 LSJS 454; Murran Investments Pty Ltd v
Aromatic Beauty Products Pty Ltd (2000) 191 ALR 579; Feltafield Pty Ltd v Heidelberg
5

Graphic Equipment (1995) 56 FCR 481; Jarman v Lambert and Cooke Contractors Ltd
[1951] 2 KB 937; Southern Equities Corporation Ltd (in liq) v Bond (No 2) (2001) 78
SASR 554; Murray-Oates v Jjadd Pty Ltd (1999) 76 SASR 38; Murphy v Haskell [1961]
SASR 1; Southern Equities Corporation Ltd (in liq) v Arthur Andersen & Co (No 10)
(2002) 82 SASR 53; R v Perry (No 3) (1981) 28 SASR 112; R v Perry (No 4) (1981) 28
SASR 119; Spicer v Coppins (1991) 56 SASR 175 ; In the Estate of Hassan (dec’d) (2008)
100 SASR 464; R v Toki (No 3) (2000) 116 A Crim R 536; R v Lester (2007) 176 A Crim R
152, considered.
WORDS AND PHRASES CONSIDERED/DEFINED
"suspect"
"fair and accurate report"

SANDS v CHANNEL SEVEN ADELAIDE PTY LTD & ANOR
[2009] SASC 215

Table of Contents
1 Introduction..................................................................................................5
2 Background to the publications..................................................................6
2.1 The plaintiff’s background....................................................................6
2.2 The Draper connection..........................................................................7
2.3 The Corinna Marr connection..............................................................8
2.4 The murder of Corinna Marr................................................................8
2.5 The police investigation.........................................................................9
3 The Channel 7 publication.........................................................................11
4 The ABC publications................................................................................12
4.1 The Draper injunction application and District Court order –
16 May 2004.........................................................................................12
4.2 The District Court proceedings – 19 May 2004..................................13
4.3 The ABC publications.........................................................................15
4.3.1 The 2.00pm broadcast......................................................................15
4.3.2 The 3:00pm broadcast......................................................................16
4.3.3 The 4:00pm broadcast......................................................................16
4.3.4 The Website Article...........................................................................17
4.4 Resumption of the District Court hearing..........................................17
5 The pleadings..............................................................................................19
5.1 The pleaded imputations.....................................................................19
5.2 Channel 7’s pleadings.........................................................................20
5.3 Channel 7’s justification defence .......................................................20
5.4 Channel 7’s qualified privilege defence.............................................24
Bleby J [2009] SASC 215
2

5.5 The plaintiff’s reply to Channel 7’s defence......................................24
5.6 The ABC’s pleadings...........................................................................25
5.7 The plaintiff’s reply to the ABC’s pleadings......................................26
6. The Channel 7 Promotion – Whether the pleaded imputation was in
fact conveyed...............................................................................................27
6.1 Introduction.........................................................................................27
6.2 Reasonable grounds simpliciter or reasonable grounds based on
direct evidence of conduct...................................................................28
6.3 The relevant legal principles...............................................................32
6.4 The imputation conveyed.....................................................................35
7 Channel 7’s plea of justification................................................................36
7.1 Introduction.........................................................................................36
7.2 What is required to be proved .............................................................36
7.3 The witnesses.......................................................................................38
7.3.1 The plaintiff ......................................................................................38
7.3.2 Detective Sergeant Keane.................................................................43
7.3.3 Colin Todd........................................................................................44
7.3.4 George Svigos, Ian Parrish, Janelle Denley and Andrew Faulkner44
7.3.5 Tom Milosevic ..................................................................................46
7.3.6 Angela Hudoba.................................................................................46
7.3.7 Other witnesses as to justification....................................................47
7.4 Facts.....................................................................................................47
7.4.1 Time of death....................................................................................47
7.4.2 The circumstances of the murder.....................................................47
7.4.3 The plaintiff’s 30 August 1997 statement.........................................48
7.4.4 The plaintiff’s work colleagues........................................................48
[2009] SASC 215 Bleby J
3

7.4.5 The plaintiff’s 8 October 2002 interview and its aftermath.............49
7.4.6 The plaintiff’s 24 January 2004 interview .......................................51
7.4.7 The plaintiff’s evidence.....................................................................52
7.4.8 The plaintiff’s relationship with Corinna Marr...............................54
7.4.9 The plaintiff’s contact with Corinna Marr immediately before her
death.................................................................................................56
7.5 Justification – conclusion...................................................................57
8 Channel 7 – Extended qualified privilege................................................59
9 The ABC publications – Whether the pleaded imputation was in fact
conveyed......................................................................................................63
9.1 Introduction.........................................................................................63
9.2 Use of the past tense............................................................................64
9.3 The repetition rule...............................................................................67
9.4 Whether the content and context suggest reasonable grounds.........68
9.5 Conclusion...........................................................................................74
10 The ABC publications – Fair and accurate report..................................74
10.1 Whether the statutory defence applies................................................74
10.2 Whether the reports were fair and accurate.......................................78
10.2.1 General considerations....................................................................78
10.2.2 The fairness and accuracy of the reports.........................................81
10.3 The common law defence and malice.................................................86
10.3.1 General considerations....................................................................86
10.3.2 Whether malice is established..........................................................88
10.4 Whether the ABC’s reports were contemporaneous..........................91
10.5 Conclusion...........................................................................................92
Bleby J [2009] SASC 215
4

11 Damages.......................................................................................................92
11.1 General considerations........................................................................92
11.2 Distress and hurt feelings....................................................................93
11.3 Loss of reputation................................................................................94
11.3.1 Nature and extent of publication......................................................94
11.3.2 Evidence of loss of reputation..........................................................95
11.4 Vindication...........................................................................................97
11.5 Aggravation..........................................................................................98
11.6 Loss of employment – Channel 7........................................................99
12 Conclusion.................................................................................................104
Appendix 1 - Hearsay Evidence Ruling..........................................................105
Appendix 2 – Ruling on Public Interest Immunity.......................................114
Appendix 3 - Admissibility of plaintiff’s records of interview.....................116
Relevance.......................................................................................................116
Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Act ....................................................116
Telephone Intercept.......................................................................................118
Cross-examination by police.........................................................................119
Other objections.............................................................................................119
Conclusion.....................................................................................................120
Appendix 4 – Ruling on amendment of reply................................................121
Appendix 5 - Admission of written statements of witnesses Svigos,
Parrish, Hudoba and Faulkner...............................................................124
Appendix 6 - Admission of Professor Byard’s Report..................................128
Appendix 7 - Admission of evidence of statements made by
Corinna Marr to witnesses......................................................................131