An Awkward Situation: The Courts' Approach to a Judical Officer Suing for Defamation
| Field | Value | Language |
| dc.contributor.author | Sahore, Aarushi | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2014-10-28 | |
| dc.date.available | 2014-10-28 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2014-01-01 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/2123/12159 | |
| dc.description | The New South Wales Court of Appeal decision in O’Shane v Harbour Radio exposes various issues involved in a judicial officer’s suit for defamation, including the challenges faced by defendants in raising the defence of truth. While the majority found that Magistrate O’Shane was not barred from bringing a defamation claim against Alan Jones, the minority held it should be disallowed because of public policy reasons. This paper proposes that the policy reasons in favour of barring judicial defamation suits can potentially be invoked to establish a novel concept of ‘judicial reputation’, borrowing from existing jurisprudence in relation to ‘governmental reputation’. Applied here, a plaintiff should not have capacity to sue in defamation in order to protect their judicial reputation, because this type of reputation is incompatible with democratic principles of freedom of speech. Having regard to the unique position judicial officers are in, in that they effectively embody the court, and the public nature of the defendant’s wrong in publishing words criticising them, it can be said that a personal suit to protect judicial reputation is incongruous with defamation law. | en_AU |
| dc.rights | The author retains copyright of this work | en_AU |
| dc.title | An Awkward Situation: The Courts' Approach to a Judical Officer Suing for Defamation | en_AU |
| dc.type | Thesis, Honours | en_AU |
| dc.contributor.department | Sydney Law School | en_AU |
Associated file/s
Associated collections