FAIR COMMENT BITES THE DUST
On Thursday 11 June 2009 in the Victorian Appeal Court Justice Ashley delivered a judgment I find extremely puzzling. The judgement was supported by Justices Redlich and Neave.
In essence Ashley ruled that my book Getting away with murder must be taken as a book of fact rather than opinion. This means we are not entitled to a fair commentt defence in the defamation proceedings undertaken by barrister Dyson Hore-Lacy. At law a fair comment defence must be based on the facts truly stated. Justice Ashley found that this was not the case in relation to one particular matter. I do not agree with his interpretation of my words.
With all respect to Judge Ashley I genuinely believe he misunderstands my critique of the now extinct provocation law. Put simply, it's my contention that the provocation law was conceptually flawed and that what was traditionally offered as a defence by 'wife killers' was only part of the problem. As long as a defendant told police his wife had insulted him it was enough - in the majority of cases - to warrant a defence of provocation at trial or on appeal. The nature of the alleged abuse seemed less important than that words had in fact been uttered.
Given the judge's comments are now reported in a public document, what level of public debate does the law allow? That question is one for free speech advocates to ponder.
I will, the law allowing, offer a more comprehensive response in the coming days
CLICK HERE FOR JUSTICE ASHLEY'S JUDGMENT :
