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

[SouthAussie]

Could he be shutting them up on some knowledge they intend to publish?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I thought that at first, but on reading more about defamation in Australia, it seems it must have already been published and communicated. (see my post #490)

 

[SouthAussie]

It's being heard in the Supreme court because of the monetary value IMO.

District court is limited to $750,000, if you want more you have to go to the Supreme Court.

https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/civil/monetary_jurisdiction.html

For claims involving the general law, including common law actions, intentional torts and commercial disputes, the jurisdiction of the District Court is $750,000: s 4(1) of the District Court Act 1973.

That link also says that "Defamation cases are conducted in the Supreme Court ...." so if it is defamation, I understand the Supreme Court action.

https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/civil/defamation.html

I'm glad you found the link, too. It is a good link for trying to get an initial handle on this.

 

[sosocurious]

so what's your point?

Have the police named anyone as a poi.
All I recall is it being said they would not discuss specific poi.
I guess my point is BS did the interview and named himself as a poi - so if that is his gripe - he is responsible for that not the media and not the police.

His first lawyer said he was facing a whirlwind of investigations and I am just wondering what could this coming court date could be all about.
Why just the Mail and the Australian ?

 

[sosocurious]

So, if it is defamation that will be argued, this is what Spedding has to prove ....



That part is easy, I would think.

The rest of it, not so easy ....

Argh the freedom of speech argument ... genuine public interest versus ?
imo

 

[SouthAussie]

Have the police named anyone as a poi.
All I recall is it being said they would not discuss specific poi.
I guess my point is BS did the interview and named himself as a poi - so if that is his gripe - he is responsible for that not the media and not the police.

His first lawyer said he was facing a whirlwind of investigations and I am just wondering what could this coming court date be all about.
Why just the Mail and the Australian ?

That is an interesting point, soso. Why just those two publications?

I guess if we look a bit, we may be able to see if the other publications who may have published the same various items quoted their source as the Daily Mail or The Australian.

In other words, The Australian and the Daily Mail were the initial sources.

 

[sosocurious]

I wonder if he is suing good ole Col, too.

Generally speaking, liability for publication is construed broadly: Webb v Bloch (1928) 41 CLR 331. The plaintiff may bring proceedings not only against the author of the publication but any other person who has authorised or otherwise participated in the publication — such as the proprietor of a newspaper, the source of the information or the person who repeats the libel — and the choice of whom to sue is a matter for the plaintiff: Tobin & Sexton [5260]–[5265].
https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/civil/defamation.html

Surely not.
Did the mail repeat what Col said ...

No seriously - I was thinking along the lines of your above post.

 

[bearbear]

so is there something defamatory back in the archives of these newspapers?

 

[iailwa]

Yes, I would like you to provide at least one decent example, if you want to make a point. I try to do that as much as possible.

But an Australian example would be only right, as we are talking about Australian police practise and methodology .. not what they do in the US.

Ok, Jill Meagher - her husband was a POI initially - was he not? All partners are a person of interest at first in an investigation, I think you would agree? Other Australian cases - Derek Percy is a POI in the Wander beach murders and the Adelaide Oval cases. Also Bevan Spencer von Einem remains a POI in several young male's deaths in Adelaide. MOO

 

[Hbayne]

Ok, Jill Meagher - her husband was a POI initially - was he not? All partners are a person of interest at first in an investigation, I think you would agree? Other Australian cases - Derek Percy is a POI in the Wander beach murders and the Adelaide Oval cases. Also Bevan Spencer von Einem remains a POI in several young male's deaths in Adelaide. MOO

Derek Percy a very dead poi !

 

[SouthAussie]

Well, it seems that Spedding would have to prove that the media didn't have a right to publish whatever it is they published.


The important question is whether you have a right to say it. If you do, you have a legal defence.

.... you can defend your speech or writing on various grounds. There are three main types of defence:

* what you said was true;

* you had a duty to provide information;

* you were expressing an opinion.

https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/dissent/documents/defamation.html

 

[Hbayne]

Well, it seems that Spedding would have to prove that the media didn't have a right to publish whatever it is they published.


The important question is whether you have a right to say it. If you do, you have a legal defence.

.... you can defend your speech or writing on various grounds. There are three main types of defence:

* what you said was true;

* you had a duty to provide information;

* you were expressing an opinion.

https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/dissent/documents/defamation.html

Where would this put every news station that reported same info ? Will they all be next in line.

 

[sleepinoz]

That is an interesting point, soso. Why just those two publications?

I guess if we look a bit, we may be able to see if the other publications who may have published the same various items quoted their source as the Daily Mail or The Australian.

In other words, The Australian and the Daily Mail were the initial sources.

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.

 

[SouthAussie]

Ok, Jill Meagher - her husband was a POI initially - was he not? All partners are a person of interest at first in an investigation, I think you would agree? Other Australian cases - Derek Percy is a POI in the Wander beach murders and the Adelaide Oval cases. Also Bevan Spencer von Einem remains a POI in several young male's deaths in Adelaide. MOO

Look, I get what you are trying to say, but those examples do not fit the bill.

Tom Meagher was not a POI, he just had to be cleared first in the same manner that William's bio and foster parents had to be cleared first.

What we are saying is the police using another POI(s) to deflect from another person they are investigating. Tom was cleared, almost right away. And it was publicly acknowledged by the police.

I don't think a genuine example is out there, because I don't believe that is part of police methodology.

Police made it very clear they were looking for the person following Jill in the video.

 

[sosocurious]

Well, it seems that Spedding would have to prove that the media didn't have a right to publish whatever it is they published.


The important question is whether you have a right to say it. If you do, you have a legal defence.

.... you can defend your speech or writing on various grounds. There are three main types of defence:

* what you said was true;

* you had a duty to provide information;

* you were expressing an opinion.

https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/dissent/documents/defamation.html

This comes as it was revealed Spedding was living with three young boys at the time the William vanished - despite authorities being aware of allegations he raped two young girls in 1987.

The mother of the three young boys, who cannot be named, was shocked to discover that the children had been living with a man accused of child abuse.

'Someone... needs to be held accountable,' she told The Australian.

The boys' grandfather told the newspaper: 'I am very concerned about what may have happened to my grandchildren.'



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...storical-child-sex-charges.html#ixzz5CWZaTPV9

Neither he nor the boys’ mother can be named for legal reasons that also restrict what can be said about the children themselves. The boys’ mother said she had been warned not to speak to the press.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/ne...n/news-story/dc162954d67a5c014031cb4e59bfc735


Maybe something to do with this?
Wonder how Barnes and whoever it was before him, is going with that Ombudsman investigation?

 

[SouthAussie]

Another point here is how the media can drag this out for a long time .....

The large costs, due especially to the cost of legal advice, mean that most people never sue for defamation. If you don't have much money, you don't have much chance against a rich opponent, whether you are suing them or they are suing you. Cases can go on for years. Judgements can be appealed. The costs become enormous. Only those with deep pockets can pursue such cases to the end.
https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/dissent/documents/defamation.html


Maybe Spedding is trying to scare them into laying off him, as TGY said ... not publish things in the future (like details of the court cases, or a special article by one/both of the victims).
Or he is hoping like heck for a financial settlement.

Maybe he couldn't get a non-disclosure on court case details, so he is trying this instead. To shut them up in the future.

 

[iailwa]

Look, I get what you are trying to say, but those examples do not fit the bill.

Tom Meagher was not a POI, he just had to be cleared first in the same manner that William's bio and foster parents had to be cleared first.

What we are saying is the police using another POI(s) to deflect from another person they are investigating. Tom was cleared, almost right away. And it was publicly acknowledged by the police.

I don't think a genuine example is out there, because I don't believe that is part of police methodology.

Police made it very clear they were looking for the person following Jill in the video.

Well he was indeed a person of interest, if excluded quickly, wasn't he? What about the other two examples I gave you? Any ideas? Do you want more. DO you know what POI means?

 

[Hbayne]

Another point here is how the media can drag this out for a long time .....

The large costs, due especially to the cost of legal advice, mean that most people never sue for defamation. If you don't have much money, you don't have much chance against a rich opponent, whether you are suing them or they are suing you. Cases can go on for years. Judgements can be appealed. The costs become enormous. Only those with deep pockets can pursue such cases to the end.
https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/dissent/documents/defamation.html


Maybe Spedding is trying to scare them into laying off him, as TGY said ... not publish things in the future (like details of the court cases, or a special article by one/both of the victims).
Or he is hoping like heck for a financial settlement.

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

 

[SouthAussie]

Well he was indeed a person of interest, if excluded quickly, wasn't he? What about the other two examples I gave you? Any ideas? Do you want more. DO you know what POI means?

BBM: You sure have a way with words, iailwa. Not a nice way.

No, I don't want anything else from you. You can have your opinion, I will have mine. Thanks.

 

[SouthAussie]

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

Yes, the payout is capped. Not the court costs or legal fees. I just read that in all this stuff I am reading. Payout capped at about $380,000, I think it said. Something like that.

 

[Hbayne]

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