Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, Nsw, 12 Sept 2014 - #33

[sosocurious]

IIRC he's already had a go at SMH and lost. This was some time ago and I think it was because they were the first to name him.

Yes I think so and maybe that he was not the only poi.

The headline did not imply that Mr Spedding was the only person of interest.

Council is of the view that more prominence could have been given to police comments that Mr Spedding was only a “person of interest”. However, the inclusion of comments in support of Mr Spedding contributed to the articles’ overall fairness and balance.

Accordingly, Council has concluded that its Standards of Practice were not breached.

http://www.presscouncil.org.au/document-search/adj-1651/

 

[SouthAussie]

I guess there a multitude of things he could be trying to sue for. Could be something as simple (for example) publishing his car rego in a photo . Just a thought

I think there is a good chance it is defamation, due to the Supreme Court thing. Lesser events go to a lesser court.

I can see why the Supreme Court handles defamation. It is such a legal opinion thing. Do you have the right to say those things? Are they justified? etc etc

 

[Hbayne]

I think there is a good chance it is defamation, due to the Supreme Court thing. Lesser events go to a lesser court.

I can see why the Supreme Court handles defamation. It is such a legal opinion thing. Do you have the right to say those things? Are they justified? etc etc

Yes I think you’re right SA. Will be interesting indeed to see where this is going. Spedding may have better grounds going after some of the Sm pages that certainly don’t hold back !

 

[SouthAussie]

Even if this is about those two little girls, I dont see how he has a leg to stand on. There was no vedict in that case(s) at the time of publication. MSM were just reporting on the stuff in the case file, or from the Prosecutors office, or wherever they got their info.

 

[SouthAussie]

Yes I think you’re right SA. Will be interesting indeed to see where this is going. Spedding may have better grounds going after some of the Sm pages that certainly don’t hold back !

Interesting that you say that ... in some 5 year stats I was just reading, defamation casess against MSM were only 26% of the cases. The rest were social media, texts, and Google, believe it or not.

Made me think the foster parents should go after a social media page or two.

 

[Hbayne]

Interesting that you say that ... in some 5 year stats I was just reading, defamation casess against MSM were only 26% of the cases. The rest were social media, texts, and Google, believe it or not.

Made me think the foster parents should go after a social media page or two.

And about 100 or so others too !!!

 

[sleepinoz]

I thought defamation cases were capped at a certain amount. Will have to check where I read this.

I don't think they are capped, Rebel Wilson received $4.5M in her defamation case

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-13/rebel-wilson-defamation-damages/8936850

 

[SouthAussie]

I don't think they are capped, Rebel Wilson received $4.5M in her defamation case

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-13/rebel-wilson-defamation-damages/8936850

Rebel Wilson was cited as a special case. I will see if I can find the link again.

 

[Hbayne]

I don't think they are capped, Rebel Wilson received $4.5M in her defamation case

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-13/rebel-wilson-defamation-damages/8936850

That’s right. Maybe capped if it’s suing an individual ? Not sure

 

[SouthAussie]

That’s right. Maybe capped if it’s suing an individual ? Not sure

Rebel was awarded over the capped amount, the media challenged it ...
.

BBM:
It is understood lawyers representing the media outlets will argue the trial judge was wrong to award Wilson a sum higher than the maximum amount set for damages for non-economic loss in defamation cases in Victoria.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-...a-of-collusion-over-defamation-appeal/9531806

 

[JLZ]

I am okay with people not agreeing with me. I wish you would back up your statement with some evidence of what you are saying, though.

I am saying that I cannot remember a case where a POI(s) has been so blatantly named, and then suddenly another completely different unknown unnamed person is arrested for that crime.

I imagine that's happened, but it would be because the police were mistaken in their earlier suspicions, not because they wanted to cause a distraction and to hell with the consequences for the person named. If anyone knows of an Australian case where police deliberately created public suspicion of an innocent person, I'd like to see a link or at least a direct reference to the case.

 

[SouthAussie]

Okay, this is from the Act - just so we know. Subsection (2) would have applied to Rebel Wilson.


(1) Unless the court orders otherwise under subsection (2), the maximum amount of damages for non-economic loss that may be awarded in defamation proceedings is $250,000 or any other amount adjusted in accordance with this section from time to time (the maximum damages amount) that is applicable at the time damages are awarded

(2) A court may order a defendant in defamation proceedings to pay damages for non-economic loss that exceed the maximum damages amount applicable at the time the order is made if, and only if, the court is satisfied that the circumstances of the
publication of the defamatory matter to which the proceedings relate are such as to warrant an award of aggravated damages.



Here is the Act, in case we ever want to look at it ..... oops this is the NSW Act.

https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/inforce/1517ed3d-c5e2-ebf3-ed3b-d890a4e77f6b/2005-77.pdf


Here is the Vic Act pertaining to Rebel Wilson's case. But the relevant clause reads exactly the same in both the NSW and Vic Acts.
http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubStatbook.nsf/f932b66241ecf1b7ca256e92000e23be/883e4cefc95fe34aca2570ad001f1797/$FILE/05-075a.pdf

 

[SouthAussie]

I imagine that's happened, but it would be because the police were mistaken in their earlier suspicions, not because they wanted to cause a distraction and to hell with the consequences for the person named. If anyone knows of an Australian case where police deliberately created public suspicion of an innocent person, I'd like to see a link or at least a direct reference to the case.

I can't see them knowingly doing that either.

It would look bad for them in court, for one thing. Entrapment, possibly. Could jeopardise the court case.

It could also lead to lawsuits from the innocent person.

 

[sleepinoz]

Okay, this is from the Act - just so we know. Subsection (2) would have applied to Rebel Wilson.


(1) Unless the court orders otherwise under subsection (2), the maximum amount of damages for non-economic loss that may be awarded in defamation proceedings is $250,000 or any other amount adjusted in accordance with this section from time to time (the maximum damages amount) that is applicable at the time damages are awarded

(2) A court may order a defendant in defamation proceedings to pay damages for non-economic loss that exceed the maximum damages amount applicable at the time the order is made if, and only if, the court is satisfied that the circumstances of the
publication of the defamatory matter to which the proceedings relate are such as to warrant an award of aggravated damages.



Here is the Act, in case we ever want to look at it .....

https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/inforce/1517ed3d-c5e2-ebf3-ed3b-d890a4e77f6b/2005-77.pdf

If the District Court has jurisdiction up to $750,000 - that $250,000 doesn't seem correct to me (but according to iailwa I have a low IQ)

http://www.courts.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/cats/which_court_or_tribunal/jurisdiction.aspx

The Supreme Court is the highest court in New South Wales. It has unlimited civil jurisdiction and handles claims of more than $750 000.

Defamation is Civil isn't it?

 

[SouthAussie]

If the District Court has jurisdiction up to $750,000 - that $250,000 doesn't seem correct to me (but according to iailwa I have a low IQ)

http://www.courts.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/cats/which_court_or_tribunal/jurisdiction.aspx

The Supreme Court is the highest court in New South Wales. It has unlimited civil jurisdiction and handles claims of more than $750 000.

Defamation is Civil isn't it?

Yes it is Civil, but its own little division, I think.

Anyway, it seems point (2) that I referenced before allows them to go over the capped amount of $250,000 "if, the court is satisfied that the circumstances of the publication of the defamatory matter to which the proceedings relate are such as to warrant an award of aggravated damages".

I guess it depends how aggravating the court decides that the defamation is. I think Rebel Wilson claimed potential loss of earnings due to potential missed job opportunities.

I don't think Spedding would fall under that clause for that kind of amount, IF he was successful in any claim. A washing machine repairman wouldn't make that much money.

 

[sleepinoz]

Yes, though point (2) allows them to go over the capped amount of $250,000 "if, the court is satisfied that the circumstances of the
publication of the defamatory matter to which the proceedings relate are such as to warrant an award of aggravated damages".

I guess it depends how aggravating the court decides that the defamation is. I think Rebel Wilson claimed potential loss of earnings due to potential missed job opportunities.

I don't think Spedding would fall under that clause for that kind of amount, IF he was successful in any claim.

I get what you mean, but if it isn't being heard in the District Court, IMO the amount is well over $750k

 

[Violet77]

Yes, though point (2) allows them to go over the capped amount of $250,000 "if, the court is satisfied that the circumstances of the
publication of the defamatory matter to which the proceedings relate are such as to warrant an award of aggravated damages".

I guess it depends how aggravating the court decides that the defamation is. I think Rebel Wilson claimed potential loss of earnings due to potential missed job opportunities.

I don't think Spedding would fall under that clause for that kind of amount, IF he was successful in any claim. A washing machine repairman wouldn't make that much money.

Wasn’t Col quoted in MSM stating Bill had lost potential customers due to the POI status, I don’t have a link sorry [emoji52]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SouthAussie]

Wasn’t Col quoted in MSM stating Bill had lost potential customers due to the POI status, I don’t have a link sorry [emoji52]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, I think it was his son Rodney though, that said that. Either way, a washing machine repairman's loss of earnings would not amount to that much.

He couldn't claim more than he claimed as his earnings on his tax return, I wouldn't think. Can't be a heck of a lot of $$.

The court try to make fair and reasonable restitution, generally.

 

[purpleandgreen]

Well, good luck to him. He will be going against two giants, if he thinks he has enough money to sustain that kind of fight. If he thinks they haven't published facts from police reports.

As well as going against the Bloomberg corporation, he will be going against the Daily Mail ....


The Daily Mail has been one of the world’s most influential and trusted news brands since its launch in the United Kingdom more than a century ago. I’m excited that we can now offer Australians a local version with a strong focus on editorial integrity and campaigning journalism,' said Martin Clarke, Publisher, MailOnline.

This partnership with Mi9 makes complete sense to us. Two trusted brands with a commitment to journalism will offer stories that will set the agenda in Australia.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2514118/The-Daily-Mail-Australia-launch-online-2014.html

BBM. Or us, the taxpayers, very likely. IMO

 

[Violet77]

Yes, I think it was his son Rodney though, that said that. Either way, a washing machine repairman's loss of earnings would not amount to that much.

He couldn't claim more than he claimed as his earnings on his tax return, I wouldn't think. Can't be a heck of a lot of $$.

The court try to make fair and reasonable restitution, generally.

True!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk