Article Summary
The article delves into the defence of justification under
Section 25 of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld), focusing on its
application within Australian defamation law.
Previously conditioned on proving that the defamatory content
was both true and publicly beneficial, the defence has since
shifted towards a requirement that the imputations are
“substantially true” alone.
The legal definition of “substantially true” suggests
that the statements need not be exact in every detail but must
capture the essence of the truth, emphasising the importance of
relevance and seriousness over precise accuracy.
Key legal cases illustrate how courts interpret and apply this
principle, underscoring the need for defendants to substantiate the
core truth of the defamatory imputations while tolerating minor
inaccuracies.
The article highlights the stringent standards and detailed
scrutiny involved in invoking this defence, emphasising its
critical role in balancing freedom of expression with protection
from harm. The complexities of the defence are further explored
through discussions on the “sting” of defamation—
the pivotal essence of the claim that must be proved true for the
defence to succeed.
It’s worth pointing out that while the cases mentioned in
this article were adjudicated in different states and in Federal
Court, the principles for asserting a justification defence in
defamation lawsuits are uniform across jurisdictions, thanks to
Australia’s Uniform Defamation Laws.
In this article, our
defamation lawyers explain this in a lot more
detail.
Defence of Justification in Defamation
Section 25 of the Defamation Act 2005
(Qld) (“the Defamation Act“)
states:
It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if
the defendant proves that the defamatory imputations carried by the
matter of which the plaintiff complains are substantially
true.
In Australian defamation law, the defence of truth, also known
as justification, requires that the defendant prove the substantial
truth of the claims they’ve made.
Previously, under the repealed 1889 Act, a defendant in Queensland could
only use this defence if they could demonstrate that the defamatory
content was not only true but also beneficial to the public.
However, changes in the 2005 Defamation Act have shifted to show
that the defamatory statements are substantially true only.
So, if the imputations contained in the publication are
substantially true, then this is a complete defence to a defamation
claim. But what does “substantially true” mean?
Our
defamation solicitors explain below.
Substantial Truth of the Publication
Schedule 5 of the Defamation Act
defines “substantially true” to mean:
“substantially true” means true in substance or
not materially different from the truth.
The dictionary defines
“substance” in this context to mean:
importance, seriousness, or relationship to real
facts
The dictionary defines
“materially” in this context to mean:
in an important or noticeable way
But what have the cases said about the defence of justification
and substantial truth in a defamation matter?
In Howden v Truth & Sportsman Ltd [1937] HCA
74, the High Court said:
Lastly, to succeed in a plea of justification, the defendant
must prove the truth of all the material statements contained in
the libel; there must be a substantial justification of the whole
libel … The defence depends upon the substantial truth of the
defamatory meaning conveyed by a libel. Every material part of the
imputations upon the plaintiff contained in the words complained of
must be true; otherwise the justification fails as an answer to the
action.
In Wash Investments Pty Ltd & Ors v SCK
Properties Pty Ltd & Ors [2016] QDC 77, Ryrie DCJ
said:
For the ‘justification’ defence to apply, a party
must prove that what he has published is substantially true. The
concept of “being substantially true” denotes “not
materially different”. Further, use of the word
‘substantial’ suggests that if the publication is mostly
true, then this may well be enough to raise this defence.
So, the definitions and the case law state that the defamatory
matter in the imputations must be mostly true, mostly true in
substance, essentially true, or mostly true. It does not have to be
100% true.
In Wagner & Ors v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd & Ors
[2018] QSC 201 Flanagan J said:
To succeed in a plea of truth, the defendant must prove that
the imputations are true in substance or not materially different
from the truth. What must be proved to be true is every material
part of the imputation relied upon by the plaintiffs; errors in
detail are tolerated.
In Harrington v Shoard [2023] QDC 11,
Sheridan DCJ said at [83] and [84]:
The term “substantially true” is defined in s 4 of
Schedule 5 of the Act to mean “true in substance or not
materially different from the truth.” This means to succeed a
defendant must prove that the imputations are true in substance or
not materially different from the truth … Whilst errors in detail
might be tolerated, a defendant must prove the truth of every part
of the imputation relied upon.
In Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Mahommed [2010]
NSWCA 335, the New South Wales Court of Appeal said the
following at [138]:
In order to establish imputation 12 was substantially true,
the appellant had to establish that every material part of it was
true. However, this does not mean the appellant had to prove the
truth of every detail of the words established as defamatory,
rather the defence of substantial truth is concerned with meeting
the sting of the defamation.
In Burston v Hanson [2022] FCA 1235,
Bromwich J said at [164]:
The material parts are those which carry the defamatory
sting.
What is the defamatory “sting” of the imputation?
The Sting of the Imputation
The defendant does not have to prove every detail of the
defamatory statement is true; it is enough to prove the main facts
of the matter are true (or substantially true). In Caccavo, Ralph & Anor v Daft & Anor [2006]
TASSC 36, Master S J Holt said at [3(v)]:
The justification plea does not need to allege the truth of
every last meticulous detail of the plaintiffs’ drafted
imputation, but sufficient must be alleged so that if proved the
truth of the sting of the imputation will have been
established.
Citing Lord Shaw of Dunfermline in Sutherland v Stopes [1925] AC 47 at [79],
Master S J Holt gave an example:
If I write that the defendant on 6 March took a saddle from
my stable and sold it the next day and pocketed the money, all
without notice to me and that in my opinion he stole the saddle and
if the facts truly are found to be that the defendant did not take
the saddle from the stable but from the harness room and that he
did not sell it the next day, but a week afterwards, but
nevertheless he did without my knowledge or consent sell my saddle
so taken and pocketed the proceeds, then the whole sting of the
liable may be justifiably affirmed by a jury notwithstanding these
errors in detail.
In summary, section 25 of the Defamation Act
allows for a defence against defamation if the defendant can
demonstrate that the harmful imputations are “substantially
true,” defined as true in essence or not significantly
different from the truth.
This concept emphasises the relevance or seriousness of the
information over exact accuracy, suggesting that minor inaccuracies
in the details are permissible as long as the core or
“sting” of the defamation is true.
The defendant must prove the truth of all critical aspects of
the imputation. Errors in detail of the matter are tolerated,
provided they do not alter the overall substance of the imputation.
For instance, slight discrepancies in how events occurred or minor
factual mistakes are acceptable as long as they do not change the
main accusation’s “sting” or essential truth.
This approach aligns with the principle that a defendant need
not prove the literal truth of every detail of the imputations in
the
concerns notice, but must demonstrate the substantial truth of
the allegations to
defend successfully against a defamation claim.
Pleading the Defence of Justification
When a defendant uses a defence of justification in
defamation proceedings, they must provide specific details
about the facts of the matter they are relying on. These details
should directly address the accusations the plaintiff claims arose
from the publication.
If these details are not sufficiently provided, the plaintiff
may be able to have the pleadings or particulars struck out due to
its lack of specificity.
In Zierenberg and Wife v Labouchere [1893] UKLawRpKQB
102, Lord Esher, M.R said:
That a general plea of justification of a libel without
particulars of that justification is bad has been the law from the
earliest times.
In Wootton v Sievier [1913] UKLawRpKQB 114,
the Court said:
… where a defendant raises an imputation of misconduct
against the plaintiff, the plaintiff ought to be enabled to go to
trial with knowledge of the acts which it is alleged he has
committed and upon which the defendant intends to rely as
justifying the imputation; and that if the particulars are such as
the defendant ought to give, he cannot refuse to do so …
In Hickinbotham v Leach [1842] EngR 799,
Parke B said:
It is a perfectly well-established rule in cases of libel or
slander, that where the charge is general in its nature, the
defendant, in a plea of justification, must state some specific
instances of the misconduct imputed to the plaintiff … The plea
ought to state the charge with the same precision as in an
indictment.
In Sims v Wran [1984] 1 NSWLR 317, Hunt J
said at [321]:
The fundamental principle in relation to particulars in
defamation, as in any other case, is that a party must be made
aware of the nature of the case he is called upon to meet … the
object of particulars is to save expense in preparing to meet a
case which may never be put … and to make the party’s case
plain so that each side may know what are the issues of fact to be
investigated at the hearing … It is not a question of whether one
party has adequate knowledge of the actual facts; it is a question
of whether he has adequate knowledge of what the other party
alleges are the facts, for that is the case which he must meet
…
In summary, the particulars must:
- Specificity Required – A general plea of
justification for libel without detailed specifics of the matter is
not acceptable. The defence must include particulars of the
justification, a requirement that has been upheld consistently in
legal history. - Knowledge for Preparation – When a
defendant alleges misconduct by the plaintiff, the plaintiff must
have prior knowledge of the specific acts they are accused of
committing, which the defendant intends to use to justify the
imputation. - Detail Similar to Indictment – In cases
where the charges are general, the defendant must provide specific
instances of misconduct in their plea of justification, detailed
similarly to an indictment. - Clarity and Fairness in Litigation –
Particulars in a defamation case are crucial to ensure both parties
are clear on the facts to be debated, allowing for fair
preparation, and reducing unnecessary litigation expenses. This
principle ensures that the defendant’s claims are made
explicit, not just what the plaintiff knows to be the facts, but
what the defendant alleges to be the facts.
Case Summaries – Defence of Justification
The “Case Summary” section provides a detailed
examination of several legal cases where the defence of
justification played a crucial role. This section explores how the
defence is applied across various contexts, from consumer
complaints and political statements to allegations of professional
misconduct and criminal behaviour.
Each summary delves into the complexities of proving the
substantial truth of defamatory statements. The cases illustrate
the challenges parties face in demonstrating the truthfulness of
their claims or defences, highlighting the high standards of
evidence required. These summaries also discuss the impact of a
plaintiff’s past activities and public statements on the
outcomes of defamation cases, emphasising the nuanced interplay
between factual accuracy and legal defences.
Through these analyses, the section sheds light on the stringent
requirements for establishing the defence of justification,
including the necessity for clear and convincing evidence that
supports the truth of the allegations made. The summaries aim to
provide insights into the procedural intricacies and strategic
considerations that define defamation litigation, making it a
valuable resource for understanding key legal principles in
real-world applications.
Asbog Veterinary Services Pty Ltd & Anor v Barlow
The case of Asbog Veterinary Services Pty Ltd & Anor v
Barlow [2020] QDC 112, centered around allegations of
defamation made by Asbog Veterinary Services and Allen Stanislaus
Brian O’Grady against Carrie Barlow due to several
comments she posted online about their services. The comments
were made after Barlow felt she was overcharged for veterinary
services following an incident where her dog was attacked.
Barlow defended herself by asserting the truth of her
statements, specifically under the defence of substantial truth or
justification. This defence would be successful if she could prove
that the defamatory imputations carried by her publications were
substantially true.
The court did not find all of Barlow’s justifications
convincing enough to establish that her statements were
substantially true across all the points she raised.
The judge concluded that while there might have been some
discrepancies in pricing, they did not amount to the level of
overcharging or misconduct as alleged by Barlow in her
publications.
The case highlights the complexity of proving the truth as a
defence in defamation actions, especially when commercial services
and pricing are involved. The court meticulously examined the
factual basis behind each alleged defamatory statement against the
evidence provided to assess the validity of the truth defence.
Hanson-Young v Leyonhjelm (No 4)
In Hanson-Young v Leyonhjelm (No 4) [2019] FCA
1981, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young sued Senator David
Leyonhjelm over several public statements he had made criticising
and making allegations against her following an incident in the
Australian Senate.
The imputations made included that she claimed all men were
rapists and that she was a hypocrite. Leyonhjelm claimed the
defence of justification, stating that the claims he made were
substantially true.
Following a lot of the cases mentioned above, the court found
that Leyonhjelm could not rely on the defence of qualified
privilege or justification for his statements about Hanson-Young,
ruling that he did not have a reasonable basis to believe the
substance of his defamatory statements and therefore could not
establish the defence of justification, deciding:
Had I accepted the applicant’s account of what she said,
the respondent’s justification defence would still fail. That
is because the words the applicant claimed to have used could not,
on any reasonable view, be tantamount to a claim that “all men
are rapists”. Further, on any reasonable view, the first set
of words attributed to the applicant by Senator Hinch (“women
would not need protection if men weren’t rapists or men stopped
raping women”) could not be regarded as tantamount to a claim
that “all men are rapists”.
This case underscores the complexities of proving the truth of
defamatory statements in defamation proceedings, especially when
such statements involve interpretations of spoken words in dynamic
and contentious settings like parliamentary debates.
The decision highlights the stringent requirements for
establishing a defence of justification, including the necessity
for clear and convincing evidence that the allegedly defamatory
imputations are true.
Bellino v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd
In Bellino v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd [2019] FCA
1380, Antonio (Tony) Bellino sued Queensland Newspapers
for defamation, stating they had made false claims about him that
had harmed his reputation.
The allegedly defamatory imputations included that Bellino was
the owner of brothels, was a criminal, and fled to Italy as a
result of his crimes. However, Queensland Newspapers claimed the
defence of justification, citing the imputations as substantially
true.
- Much of the evidence used to support the defence of substantial
truth came from Bellino’s own admissions in a book he authored
and his testimony during the trial. This included his admissions
about the activities at venues he was involved with, such as the
Taormina Spaghetti Bar, which doubled as a venue for illegal
gambling. - The court found the defence of justification was successfully
made out by the respondent, supporting the notion that the claims
about Bellino’s criminal activities and ownership of illegal
businesses were substantially true.
The court dismissed Tony Bellino’s defamation case against
Queensland Newspapers and that Bellino must pay costs. They found
that the newspaper’s claims about Bellino’s involvement in
brothels, illegal gambling, and criminal activities in
Brisbane’s Fortitude Valley were substantially true.
The court also found that Bellino’s own testimony had the
“potential to incriminate him” [113] in illegal
activities. Ultimately, the court ruled that Queensland Newspapers
had successfully established the defence of justification, as the
defamatory imputations were proven to be substantially true.
This case highlights the complexities of defamation law,
particularly around the defence of justification. It underscores
the importance of the plaintiff’s character and past activities
in shaping the outcome of defamation proceedings, especially when
the defendant can substantiate claims with substantial truth.
Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No
41)
In Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty
Limited (No 41) [2023] FCA 555, the plaintiff, Mr Ben
Roberts-Smith, a decorated Australian soldier, claimed that the
series of articles published by the defendant, Fairfax Media
Publications Pty Limited, included false claims of several war
crimes he had supposedly committed while fighting in
Afghanistan.
In response, Fairfax Media claimed the defence of justification
and contextual truth, stating the imputations were largely
true.
- Substantial Truth Established – The
court found substantial truth in several serious allegations,
including those relating to Roberts-Smith’s actions in
Afghanistan that purportedly involved unlawful killings and
misconduct. Notably, the court established the substantial truth of
the alleged murders at Whiskey 108 and other locations where
Roberts-Smith was implicated in the killing of detained
Afghans. - Other Defences – Contextual truth was
also pleaded, which pertains to other true facts presented in the
articles that would prevent further harm to Roberts-Smith’s
reputation even if some allegations were not proven true.
The court found that Fairfax had successfully established the
defence of justification, as the majority of the defamatory
imputations about Roberts-Smith’s involvement in war crimes,
bullying, and domestic violence were proven to be substantially
true. As a result, the court made a judgment for the defendant.
This case underscores the critical role of substantial truth in
defamation defences, particularly when serious allegations against
public figures are involved. The ruling reflects the court’s
extensive consideration of witness credibility, documentary
evidence, and the detailed examination of events and operations
involving Roberts-Smith during his military service.
TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Pahuja
In the initial case, TCN Channel Nine News was found to have
defamed the plaintiff, Mr Pahuja, by ‘exposing’ him for
running a “cruel immigration scam”. The trial judge
withdrew from the jury the contextual truth defence and the
substantial truth defence in relation to imputations (a), (h) and
(j), finding that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the
imputations.
Upon appeal to the NSWCA in TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Pahuja [2019] NSWCA
166, the court decided that:
- The broadcast in question alleged that Pahuja was involved in
facilitating an immigration scam where individuals paid large sums
for Australian visas. - The trial initially concluded with a jury finding that some
defamatory imputations about Pahuja were conveyed by the
broadcast. - The appellants (Channel Nine and others) argued that their
defence of substantial truth was incorrectly withdrawn from the
jury concerning specific imputations that Pahuja was involved in
the scam. - The Court of Appeal examined whether there was sufficient
evidence to present this defence to the jury, focusing on recorded
conversations that suggested Pahuja’s involvement with an
immigration agent known for dubious practices. - The Court found that there was enough evidence for the
substantial truth defence to be considered by a jury, particularly
regarding Pahuja’s knowledge and involvement in the immigration
scam. - It was noted that the evidence could suggest that Pahuja had
more than incidental involvement in the alleged scam, contradicting
his trial testimony, which could be interpreted as misleading or
false.
This decision underscores the importance of a properly presented
substantial truth defence in defamation cases, particularly when
the evidence might support multiple interpretations of the
defendant’s involvement in the alleged actions. The case also
illustrates the appellate court’s role in ensuring that such
defences are appropriately considered at trial.
Hutley v Cosco
In the initial case, the Supreme Court of New South Wales
ordered Sydney lawyer Ms Hutley to pay her neighbour Mr Cosco
$360,000 in damages, including interest, for defaming him. Mr Cosco
sued the defendant due to an episode of A Current Affair in 2016,
where Ms Hutley accused Mr Cosco of “harassing” her
family and putting their lives in danger.
Upon appeal to the NSWCA in Hutley v Cosco [2021] NSWCA 17, the Court
said:
- Substantial Truth of Plaintiff’s
Imputations – The court found substantial truth in
several imputations regarding Cosco’s risky and aggressive
actions during the construction dispute. Specific findings included
Cosco’s act of blocking Hutley’s kitchen vent with
flammable foam, posing a significant risk and constituting
bullying. - Contextual Truth – The appeal argued and
the court considered that other true contextual imputations by
Hutley about Cosco’s behaviour mitigated the defamatory impact
of her statements. - Outcome – The appeal was upheld, leading
to the setting aside of the original defamation award. This
included a reversal on many of the original findings regarding the
truth of the statements and the implications for Cosco’s
reputation.
Hutley established that “four of the five imputations
pleaded by the plaintiff were found to be substantially true, as
well as part of the fifth imputation“.
This case illustrates the complexities of defamation law,
particularly around the defences of substantial and contextual
truth. The appeal decision emphasised the need for clear evidence
of the truth of defamatory statements and considered the broader
context of the alleged defamation, showing how additional truths
asserted by the defendant can mitigate the impact of harmful
imputations.
Courtney v Cayman News Service Ltd & Ors
In Courtney v Cayman News Service Ltd & Ors [2022]
QSC 37, Courtney, a former corporate lawyer, was convicted
in the Cayman Islands in 2015 of causing grievous bodily harm and
reckless driving after his car collided with an elderly couple,
whom he then fled the scene. The allegedly defamatory imputations
included that he:
- is a hit-and-run driver.
- drove away from the scene of an accident.
- committed the criminal offence in the Cayman Islands of leaving
the scene of an accident. - actively took steps to avoid detection by the police; and
- attempted to pervert the course of justice.
The defendants used the defence of justification, arguing that
the published statements were substantially true based on the
evidence from Courtney’s criminal proceedings and subsequent
legal consequences in the Cayman Islands.
- Substantial Truth – The court considered
whether the imputations that Courtney was a “hit-and-run
driver” and other associated claims were substantially true.
The evidence showed that Courtney had indeed been involved in the
incident, had left the scene, and had been convicted for his
actions, which provided a factual basis for the articles. - Application of the Defence – The
defendants argued that the articles were accurate summaries of the
court proceedings, which could justify the publications under the
defence of substantial truth. The court analysed the context in
which the articles were written, noting they were reports of
ongoing legal proceedings and convictions, which is a crucial
factor in evaluating the defence of justification. - Outcome of the Defence – The decision on
the application for summary judgment by the plaintiff against the
defendants was dismissed, indicating that the defendants had a real
prospect of successfully defending the defamation claim based on
the substantial truth of the reported facts.
The Supreme Court of Queensland rejected Simon Courtney’s
application for summary judgment in his defamation lawsuit against
several news outlets. The court found that the news outlets had
numerous available defences, including the defence of
justification, which could potentially succeed at trial.
This case highlights the complexity of the defence of
justification in defamation, particularly when the defamatory
statements are closely tied to the subject’s criminal conduct
and legal proceedings. The court emphasised the importance of the
factual accuracy of the statements made in publications and their
basis in previously established legal findings.
Wagner & Ors v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd & Ors
In Wagner & Ors v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd & Ors
[2018] QSC 201, the plaintiffs sued the defendants for a
series of 32 publications that were made over radio broadcasts,
that were allegedly defamatory.
The imputations included that the plaintiffs were involved in
the cover-up of deaths of people. The defendants attempted to claim
the defence of justification, stating that the publications were
substantially true.
The defendants, including Jones, relied on several defences,
including the defences of truth (justification), contextual truth,
and fair report of proceedings of public concern.
- Substantial Truth – The court had to
determine if the defamatory imputations that the Wagners were
responsible for the deaths in the Grantham flood and had
orchestrated a cover-up to protect their financial interests, were
substantially true. The defendants argued that the contextual
imputations—that the plaintiffs conducted business with
disregard for laws and community impact—were true and
relevant to the case. - Contextual Truth – This defence requires
that any additional true imputations prevent the allegedly
defamatory imputations from further harming the plaintiff’s
reputation. The defendants claimed that the Wagners’ business
practices generally harmed the community, which was contextually
true and thus mitigated the defamation. - Fair Report – The defence of fair report
was based on whether the broadcasts were fair reports of public
proceedings, specifically the official inquiries into the Grantham
floods, which did not find conclusive evidence implicating the
Wagner’s quarry in worsening the flood’s impact.
The court found that the defendants had published defamatory
material about the plaintiffs and that the defence of justification
did not apply. The court awarded damages to the plaintiffs and
granted injunctions against the defendants, preventing them from
further publishing the defamatory material.
This case highlights the challenges involved in using the
defence of justification in defamation, particularly when public
figures and complex issues like public safety and corporate
responsibility are involved. It also shows the high standards that
are required to prove the truth of serious allegations in
defamation cases.
Defence of Justification – FAQ
This FAQ section explores critical aspects of the defence of
justification in defamation law, focusing on its application and
requirements.
Through detailed questions and answers, it offers insights into
how truthfulness is evaluated in legal settings and the impact of
proving substantial truth on defamation cases.
What is the defence of justification (truth)?
The defence of justification, also known as the defence of
truth, is a legal argument used in defamation cases where the
defendant claims that the defamatory statements they made are
substantially true. Under Section 25 of the Defamation Act 2005
(Qld), proving this defence effectively negates the defamation
claim, as the law does not consider true statements to be
defamatory.
Can you use the truth as a defence against defamation?
Yes, the truth can be used as a defence against defamation. This
defence is formally known as justification. If the defendant can
demonstrate that the defamatory imputations are substantially true,
then this is a complete defence to a defamation claim. The key is
proving the essential truth of the statements in question.
How do you prove truth in a defamation case?
To prove truth in a defamation case, the defendant must
establish that every “material” part of the defamatory
imputation is true. This means focusing on the substance and
essence of the claims rather than minute details. Courts typically
require evidence that supports the main facts of the defamatory
statement, allowing for minor inaccuracies as long as they do not
affect the overall truthfulness of the core allegations.
Defamation vs. Freedom of speech: does truth matter?
In the balance between defamation and freedom of speech, truth
plays a crucial role. Truthful statements are protected under
freedom of speech principles, meaning that if a statement can be
proven true, it is not considered defamatory, regardless of its
impact. This protection underscores the importance of truth in
maintaining the integrity of free speech while protecting
individuals from false and damaging assertions.
When is something “substantially true” in defamation
law?
Something is “substantially true” in defamation law
when it is true in essence or not materially different from the
truth. This legal standard allows for minor errors in detail,
focusing instead on whether the overall defamatory
“sting” or essence of the statement is true. The truth
must capture the main facts that contribute to the defamatory
nature of the statement but does not require absolute accuracy in
every aspect.
What happens if only part of my statement is true in a
defamation case?
If only part of your statement is true in a defamation case, you
may still rely on the defence of justification if the true parts
represent the core or “sting” of the defamation. The
untrue parts must not alter the fundamental nature of what was
claimed. However, if the untrue portions materially affect the
truthfulness of the core allegations, the defence of justification
might fail, and the statement could be deemed defamatory. Courts
will assess whether the substantial truth of the allegations is
upheld despite the inaccuracies.
What does “substantial truth” mean in defamation
law?
In defamation law, “substantial truth” means that the
essence or main substance of the defamatory statements is true. The
statements do not have to be accurate in every detail but must
accurately convey the overall import or seriousness of the
allegations.
Is the defence of justification always effective in defamation
cases?
The defence of justification is effective only if the defendant
can prove that the defamatory imputations are substantially true.
If the core of the defamatory statement is proven true, the defence
generally holds, but if significant parts are false, the defence
may fail.
How detailed must the defence of justification be in
court?
In presenting a defence of justification, defendants must
provide specific details that directly address the accusations in
question. The defence must outline the factual basis for claiming
that the statements are true, ensuring that the court understands
the justification for each defamatory imputation.
What role do errors play in the defence of justification?
Errors in detail are tolerated in the defence of justification
as long as they do not affect the truth of the core, or
“sting,” of the defamation. The defence can still succeed
if minor inaccuracies do not alter the substance of what was
claimed.
Can a defendant be partially truthful and still succeed in a
justification defence?
A defendant can succeed in a justification defence even if some
details are inaccurate, provided that the substantial truth of the
defamatory sting is proven. The essence of the allegations must be
true, even if some peripheral details are not.
What impact does the defence of justification have on public
figures?
For public figures, the defence of justification can be
particularly significant as it balances their public reputation
against the freedom of speech. Proving the substantial truth of
defamatory statements about public figures can uphold journalistic
integrity and the public’s right to be informed.
How does the court determine if a statement is
“substantially true”?
Courts look at whether the essence or the most serious aspect of
the accusations is true, focusing on the importance and seriousness
of the allegations. The assessment involves considering the context
and implications of the defamatory statements to determine if they
reflect the reality substantially.
What evidence is typically required to prove substantial
truth?
Evidence required to prove substantial truth includes witness
testimonies, documents, and other tangible proof that supports the
essence of the defamatory statements. The evidence must
convincingly demonstrate that the core allegations are true.
How does the concept of “material difference” factor
into proving substantial truth?
The concept of “material difference” factors into
proving substantial truth by assessing whether deviations from the
exact truth materially affect the defamation’s essence. If
inaccuracies do not significantly alter the defamatory sting, the
defence can still be upheld.
What are the consequences if a court finds that a statement is
not substantially true?
If a court finds that a statement is not substantially true, the
defence of justification fails, and the defendant may be liable for
defamation. This can result in damages awarded to the plaintiff for
harm caused by the false statements.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
#Defence #justification #truth #defamation #Australia #Libel #Defamation
