Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
6 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Case Name |
Lange v. Australian Broadcasting Corporation [1997] |
|
|
Case Facts |
In 1996, David Lange, previous prime minister of New Zealand, brought defamation proceedings against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) for comments made about him on the current affairs program Four Corners. The Australian program was aired on New Zealand television. David Lange maintained that comments made on this program about his time in office were defamatory |
|
|
Defense |
The ABC used the defence that there exists in the Australian Commonwealth Constitution an implied right of freedom of political communication. |
|
|
Effect of case |
The High Court in this case modified the requirements of the qualified privilege defence to defamation. Under the defence of qualified privilege, it is a defence to a claim of defamation if the person making the statement believed the statement being made was of moral interest to the person receiving the information, if the statement was made without malice and if it was reasonable in the circumstances. Following the Lange case, that defence has been extended to cover situations where it was reasonable to publish information relating to the right to freedom of political communication. This case confirms and extends the right to freedom of political communication. |
|
|
High Court Decision |
The implied right to freedom of political communication was established in Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v. Commonwealth (1992) and other High Court cases. In the Lange case, the High Court confirmed this right. The High Court’s interpretation in the Lange case, however, went further in that the right to freedom of political communication extended to any time, not just before an election.The High Court also extended the defence to defamation of qualified privilege and therefore agreed with the defence offered by the ABC. |
|
|
Explanation of Decision |
The right of freedom of political communication is not a freedom to communicate. It is a right of members of the Australian community to be free from laws that effectively prevent communication with each other about political and government matters. Freedom of communication on matters of government and politics is essential for the system of representative government that is provided for in the Constitution. The High Court stated that state, territory and Commonwealth legislation and common law must conform to the right to freedom of political communications implied in the Constitution.The High Court considered the implied righ tto freedom of political communications and its effect on defamation laws. The High Court declared that the common law of defamation had to recognise that ‘each member of the Australian community has an interest in disseminating and receiving information, opinions and arguments concerning government and political matters that affect the people of Australia’. |
