Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #34

[Bohemian]

You may not have read the caselaw ... item 3 is quite clear about how many articles are subject to this defamation case and trial.

There was another article(s) involved in legal argument with another publisher, but that argument has been dealt with and there are no further proceedings, apparently that legal argument has not eventuated in a defamation trial.
From what I can see on the internet, the publisher has pulled that article from circulation.

BBM.

I’m not sure I understand which case is not proceeding, SA. BS has both of the original matters listed on the Defamations List (Directions hearings); one versus the Daily Mail and the other against Nationwide News, on 29 June 2018:





Source:
Search NSW Court Lists | NSW Online Registry (search ‘William Spedding’ and select ‘All available dates’)

 

[SouthAussie]

BBM.

I’m not sure I understand which case is not proceeding, SA. BS has both of the original matters listed on the Defamations List (Directions hearings); one versus the Daily Mail and the other against Nationwide News, on 29 June 2018:

View attachment 136758

View attachment 136759

Source:
Search NSW Court Lists | NSW Online Registry (search ‘William Spedding’ and select ‘All available dates’)

Thanks, Bo. Last time we looked we only saw one case proceeding. These are just directions hearings. So just guidance towards the next step.

More will be able to be determined as we see which case(s) go further forward.

We know from the case law that there are two articles going to trial, presumably because the publishers feel they should not be retracted. Perhaps one article from one publisher, and one from the other. Or two articles from one publisher, and the other directions hearing is just to tidy up the matter. Or do we only have the caselaw for one of the cases.

Bit confusing, at this point in time.

 

[Bohemian]

Thanks, Bo. Last time we looked we only saw one case proceeding. These are just directions hearings. So just guidance towards the next step.

More will be able to be determined as we see which case(s) go further forward.

We know from the case law that there are two articles going to trial, presumably because the publishers feel they should not be retracted. Perhaps one article from one publisher, and one from the other. Or two articles from one publisher, and the other directions hearing is just to tidy up the matter. Or do we only have the caselaw for one of the cases.

Bit confusing, at this point in time.

It’s caselaw from only one publisher, Nationwide News, as far as I can see:

Spedding v Nationwide News Pty Ltd - NSW Caselaw

I don’t think anything has been published irt BS v Daily Mail as yet.

Yes, it is confusing. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, comes of those proceedings.

 

[Bohemian]

I wonder if BS can produce pages and pages off this thread of people's opinions of what he has done, as evidence of the impression some reporting may have given the public? I also wonder if it was him that made the complaints to the press council initially about some early articles, it might have been anyone who felt that the reporting was stepping over a line and stank. IMO

Hope so, personally.

I not sure the statements of opinion by usernames and avatars, published on a USA-based forum, could make much difference to how BS’ potential clients view him. ‘We’ could all be AI bots as far as anyone knows. *bzzt* *beep*

 

[bearbear]

yes, i wish i could delete my posts here in regards to my opinion of bs character, its totally irrelevant to finding william and purely fed by msm, and not thinking before i type!

 

[purpleandgreen]

I imagine that the S got scratched off many times over the years. It could be something that he is so used to happening he doesn't notice it anymore. A good question would be, who keeps scratching it off and why? Is it just a joke?

And if so, what is the basis of that joke?

 

[drsleuth]

New laws on identity suppression in NSW sex offence cases

DEFENDANTS in sexual offences will now have to prove exceptional circumstances to have their identity suppressed under new laws passed in NSW.

Attorney-General Mark Speakman said the laws passed on Thursday meant “the embarrassment or distress of a defendant in sexual offence prosecutions will no longer be sufficient to enable the suppression of the defendant’s identity”.

 

[frogwell]

yes, i wish i could delete my posts here in regards to my opinion of bs character, its totally irrelevant to finding william and purely fed by msm, and not thinking before i type!

 

[Josie2014]

Personally I find it odd an opinion can be formed on the character of a man, who is a complete stranger, based merely on what has been read.

This man has had allegations made against him by a person or persons other than the victims. Allegations can be false.

Geoffrey Rush had false allegations made against him, it affected him deeply. If the allegations made against BS are false he surely would have been affected similarly. As such he has a right to clear his name.

"He said Rush has since lost his appetite and barely eats, is full of anxiety when he goes out in public, wakes up each morning with a terrible sense of dread about his future career, requires medication for lack of sleep and anxiety and believes his worth to the community is now "irreparably damaged".

"[He] is seriously concerned about the ongoing effect on his children and his wife," Mr Pullen said."

Geoffrey Rush 'virtually housebound' amid defamation case, says lawyer

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Henry=Harry, John=Jack, James=Jim.

In this case, "Bill" is much more informal, casual, and friendly than "William".
Why do some nicknames have no apparent relation with their original counterparts?

So, I never will say "Bill" in case BS.

 

[Jennifer17]

New laws on identity suppression in NSW sex offence cases

DEFENDANTS in sexual offences will now have to prove exceptional circumstances to have their identity suppressed under new laws passed in NSW.

Attorney-General Mark Speakman said the laws passed on Thursday meant “the embarrassment or distress of a defendant in sexual offence prosecutions will no longer be sufficient to enable the suppression of the defendant’s identity”.

I thought that the identities were only suppressed when the victim could be identified by the publication of the defendant's name, as in a close family member.

 

[sosocurious]

BBM.

I’m not sure I understand which case is not proceeding, SA. BS has both of the original matters listed on the Defamations List (Directions hearings); one versus the Daily Mail and the other against Nationwide News, on 29 June 2018:

View attachment 136758

View attachment 136759

Source:
Search NSW Court Lists | NSW Online Registry (search ‘William Spedding’ and select ‘All available dates’)

and

William Spedding v NEWS LIFE MEDIA PTY LIMITED
Date - 29 Jun 2018
Case number - 2018/00164266

Search NSW Court Lists | NSW Online Registry

 

[Hbayne]

and

William Spedding v NEWS LIFE MEDIA PTY LIMITED
Date - 29 Jun 2018
Case number - 2018/00164266

Search NSW Court Lists | NSW Online Registry

Interesting what publications they have if this link is all of them
NewsLifeMedia Titles - isubscribe.com.au

 

[Bohemian]

Personally I find it odd an opinion can be formed on the character of a man, who is a complete stranger, based merely on what has been read.

This man has had allegations made against him by a person or persons other than the victims. Allegations can be false.

Geoffrey Rush had false allegations made against him, it affected him deeply. If the allegations made against BS are false he surely would have been affected similarly. As such he has a right to clear his name.

"He said Rush has since lost his appetite and barely eats, is full of anxiety when he goes out in public, wakes up each morning with a terrible sense of dread about his future career, requires medication for lack of sleep and anxiety and believes his worth to the community is now "irreparably damaged".

"[He] is seriously concerned about the ongoing effect on his children and his wife," Mr Pullen said."

Geoffrey Rush 'virtually housebound' amid defamation case, says lawyer

BBM.

But isn’t that the whole point of BS’ defamation case against the Daily Mail and Nationwide News, Josie? That people form opinions of a person’s character based on what they’ve read (and, in the case, the inference of a few photographs)?

As far as the falsity (or not, as the case may be) of the allegations go, the NSW and Victorian DPP brought the charges against BS based on a complaint, witness statements given to police and historical medical and police records and a magistrate(s) agreed that he had cases to answer. As the NSW trial was closed and the verdict suppressed, we don’t know whether the outcome was guilty or not guilty. Also, the Victorian charges are yet to be heard so we don’t know the outcome of those charges either.

I’m sure that it has been uncomfortable for BS due to his being committed to trial on historical child sex offences but I can’t see that impacts upon the defamation cases irt the published articles about him being a POI in the disappearance of William. They are two separate matters as far as I can see.

 

[Josie2014]

BBM.

But isn’t that the whole point of BS’ defamation case against the Daily Mail and Nationwide News, Josie? That people form opinions of a person’s character based on what they’ve read (and, in the case, the inference of a few photographs)?

As far as the falsity (or not, as the case may be) of the allegations go, the NSW and Victorian DPP brought the charges against BS based on a complaint, witness statements given to police and historical medical and police records and a magistrate(s) agreed that he had cases to answer. As the NSW trial was closed and the verdict suppressed, we don’t know whether the outcome was guilty or not guilty. Also, the Victorian charges are yet to be heard so we don’t know the outcome of those charges either.

I’m sure that it has been uncomfortable for BS due to him being committed to trial on historical child sex offences but I can’t see that impacts upon the defamation cases irt the published articles about him being a POI in the disappearance of William. They are two separate matters as far as I can see.

Yes Bo that is the whole point of the defamation case.

If what is being said about a person is incorrect we have defamation laws to address and correct what is being said, in other words we should not form an opinion on someone's character based on what we read as it may in fact be false.

My point was merely to say an opinion on someone's character could only be formed by truly knowing the person. I wasn't referring to him being a POI in William's case.

As far as outcomes of charges and trials, we'll see - hopefully.

 

[Bohemian]

Interesting what publications they have if this link is all of them
NewsLifeMedia Titles - isubscribe.com.au

I think it’s a subsidiary of News Corp/News Ltd. One of the titles they publish (online) is kidspot.com.au.

 

[frogwell]

Is there anyway to know if they decided to not proceed with the case in Victoria?

 

[Bohemian]

Is there anyway to know if they decided to not proceed with the case in Victoria?

I haven’t seen it listed as yet. It’s possible that the charges may be dropped, I suppose. If so, you’d think that eventuality, and the outcome of the NSW trial, would be published in MSM.

 

[SouthAussie]

Personally, I see the defamation case(s) as quite pointless. If these are an effort for Spedding 'to clear his name', they are not going to do that, are they? The only way that he can clear his name is to be taken off the POI list, and be publically declared as not guilty in the child sex offence cases.

The defamation cases are going to have no effect whatsoever on the hundreds of balanced articles out there stating that he is a POI in the disappearance of a little 3-year old boy. Nor are they going to do anything at all about the articles out there providing details of the historical child sex charges.

The only point to the defamation cases that I can see is that Spedding may (or may not) be awarded some damages.

Any other result may be pulling of a few articles ... or not.
MSM will just be extra careful in the future to ensure that all of their articles are balanced enough to suit the law, as well as the Press Council.
And if he loses, MSM will make sure that is published, unless the result is somehow suppressed. Though I can't see a reason why it would be suppressed.

 

[Hbayne]

Personally, I see the defamation case(s) as quite pointless. If these are an effort for Spedding 'to clear his name', they are not going to do that, are they? The only way that he can clear his name is to be taken off the POI list, and be publically declared as not guilty in the child sex offence cases.

The defamation cases are going to have no effect whatsoever on the hundreds of balanced articles out there stating that he is a POI. Nor are they going to do anything at all about the articles out there providing details of the historical child sex charges.

The only point to the defamation cases that I can see is that Spedding may (or may not) be awarded some damages.

Any other result may be pulling of a few articles ... or not.
MSM will just be extra careful in the future to ensure that all of their articles are balanced enough to suit the law, as well as the Press Council.
And if he loses, MSM will make sure that is published, unless the result is somehow suppressed. Though I can't see a reason why it would be suppressed.[/
I like the dollar sign in eyes emoji