more Info pages...
♦ What Is Sex Abuse
♦ Defamation
DEFAMATION - Shoot the Messenger.
Quite a number of people have asked me if I have ever been sued or threatened because of content on this website.
I haven't been sued but I have been threatened. And now it seems they are getting serious.
Apart from a few minor corrections I have had to make when I am informed of an error, I have only ever twice been asked to remove something from this website.
One was a photo of a family group with Peter Quin SJ (dec.), which I did.
The other was relatives of Philip Wallbridge demanding I remove everything about Wallbridge, and /or the whole website (which I didn't).
They also blamed me for him taking his own life.
This is part of a phone conversation I had with them (Terry and Elizabeth, step children of Philip Wallbridge).
(correction: they are not man and wife as previously thought)
Terry:
"pull the fucking thing down now" (meaning this website).
"the information portrayed on that website is one of the primary reasons he did what he did"
Me: Are you sure about that?
"i am fucking definitely 120% sure, my friend"
(the curious thing about that is if it upset him so much and if it was untrue why didn't he demand I remove the information?)
"The other thing you need to mindful of is Philip Wallbridge has some very high profile friends in the legal sector and you might be finding some stuff gets thrown down at you like a grenade, buddy"
"you're bordering on the whole defamation and slander issue" "Pull the fucking thing down now"
Elizabeth: "you just need to take the website down, do you understand?
Before you go and destroy more lives" "and it seems to me that ... this is potentially...you enjoy it...you enjoy (unclear) lives".
"what if these allegations prove to falsehoods or fabrications"
Me: Did Philip Wallbridge say to you that all these allegations were untrue?
" the conversations he had with his family are not for you to be privy to".
" I have four children and never have I felt uncomfortable about them being around that man".
" I would be highly surprised, some of it may have happened but not to the extent that you put it there and not to the extent and not to the extent that it warrants the harrassment that you've given this poor old man."
"I hold you 100% accountable, you need to take that website down today, do you understand?" ( Elizabeth).
There was a whisper/rumour last week that someone was going to sue me for defamation.
Then yesterday (Sat. 22 Feb. 2020) an Old Xaverian I know, who also has AFL football connections, said to me out of the blue:
"you do that social media stuff don't you?"
I said "yes".
He said: "you better save your money and have a good lawyer".
I asked him "can you tell me more?"
He said again save your money.
Later I asked if he would like to hear the other side of the story.
He said "that's the last word I'll ever say to you".
I walked away and said "I think you're enjoying threatening me".
So, I have to assume this is about Philip Wallbridge and these are his "powerful" friends seeking vengeance.
Is it just a scare campaign or are they finding someone to sue me?
Right now I can't think of anyone I have mentioned in this website who would be in the Wallbridge/Old Xaverian circle and who would have cause.
If they do it, who it might be is irrelevant, that person will be a proxy in a malicious campaign to destroy me financially (which wouldn't be hard).
I did suggest to this man and wife that they should ask Brian McCoy SJ for all information he has on Wallbrige's offences and any compensation settlements.
And that they should ask Bill Uren SJ all about the report he received from Sister D'Orsa at Xavier which caused Uren to dismiss Wallbridge immediately.
Another factor was Wallbridge being under police investigation for the 6 months or so before his death.
On 24 Feb. 2020 I emailed Brain McCoy SJ suggesting he contact this man and wife in a pastoral manner and try to help them. I have not received a reply (28 Feb. 2020).
But, it seems this group do not want to know or believe the truth and are looking to blame and punish someone for Wallbrige taking his own life.
We see yet again the defenders of sex abusers deliberately ignore the victims/survivors.
The Rector of Xavier College sitting around with a group of boys all drinking and mastubating is nothing really.
Apart from the above:
No one has ever told me what I have published is wrong and/or why it is wrong.
No one has ever said to me remove their name and information (including Philip Wallbrige).
This website contains truth, allegations, opinion, some satire and humour and reports from others.
Its pretty dumb coming after me because even if they win it won't change or affect this website or its existence (apart from some little thing which might be judged to be defamatory).
If the complainant loses the action he/she could then be sued for Malicious Prosecution by the defendant.
I think there is a strong case for malice in the information above.
DEFAMATION LAW
July 5, 2021The defamation laws have just changed in most of Australia.
The new defamation laws tip the scales in favour of free speech, but it is not a free-for-all as journalists must prove their claims are in the public interest.
Changes to defamation laws came into effect in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and South Australia on 1 July and the other jurisdictions will follow suit later this year.
But does that mean we're about to see more courageous journalism?
Simply put, yes. The changes have been welcomed by those working in the media industry as journalists can now argue that publishing a story was in the public interest, instead of relying on having to prove it was true.
What do the new changes mean?
New South Wales Attorney General Mark Speakman, one of the architects of the laws, said the changes were important.
"Defamation law is a difficult balancing exercise between freedom of speech on one hand, and protecting personal reputations on the other," he said.
"I think the dial had been shifted too much against free speech in New South Wales and Australia."
"It was stifling responsible journalism to an extent that we don't see in any other western country."
The new public interest defence is based on a UK model and is expected to be most useful in cases involving high-profile public figures, such as politicians.
Former attorney general Christian Porter discontinued his defamation case against the ABC in May.
Can journalists now publish whatever they like?
No.
National spokesperson for the Australian Lawyers Alliance Greg Barnes SC said the courts will not "reward reckless conduct or people that just make up stories".
So in the scenario of a politician having an extramarital affair, for example, the argument can work "to the extent that the private life impinged on politicians’ duties", he said.
It could be valid if the politician is thought to be using taxpayer money to fund the relationship, for example.
"But, if it is simply that the politician is having a relationship with someone, then that is not something that would be a responsible communication."
"[The law is] designed to protect journalists who are writing stories about government corruption or allegations of wrongdoing by officials, ministers or the military."
On top of that, the journalist needs to prove their claims were not baseless or reckless, even if they were later found to be false.
For this there is a set criterion, according to Mr Speakman, to help a jury (or judge, depending on the state) decide if the story was in the public interest.
"[This includes] the seriousness of the imputation, the integrity of sources, whether there was an attempt to obtain the other side of the story, and what steps were taken to verify the information,” he said.
"These will be jury questions, so you are relying on the common sense of people's peers."
What about other high-profile people?
This is where it gets a bit trickier and the public interest defence may be argued in court.
There is an argument on one hand that due to a celebrity’s high profile, for example, the allegations surrounding them are in the public interest. On the other hand, it can be argued the laws were intended only for those using public funds.
In referencing recent high-profile cases Mr Barnes said they "will be decided on a case by case basis".
"I think in the Geoffrey Rush case and the Rebel Wilson case, the question of whether there is a defence of responsible communication is much more complex than it is in cases such as Christian Porter, as he's a public official," he said.
"In the Geoffrey Rush case, you may be able to argue that it is in the public interest, simply because of his high profile and because of the nature of the allegations that were made."
"On the other hand, there would be strong arguments to say this is not what is meant by public activities."
In short, we need to wait and see, as the first few cases tried under these laws will establish a precedent for how broadly the court will interpret the public interest defence.
It is important to note the allegations of inappropriate behaviour made against Geoffrey Rush were found to be “not credible or reliable” in court.
How do these changes affect more low-profile matters?
Legal experts say it means more trivial matters will not make it to court under the changes.
There is a new process aimed at settling matters outside of court, which is targeted at small claims where legal costs often outweigh possible damages.
At the outset of proceedings, the onus will be on the plaintiff (the party which says they have been defamed) to prove that the matter has caused serious harm to the reputation of the person.
Mr Speakman said this is designed to "unclog" the court system, which he said is needed as NSW's "rate of defamation litigation is about 10 times what it is in London, for example".
"The majority of defamation cases are at the low end of the scale, involving low amounts of money, and they are best settled without going to court," he said.
"And when they do end up in court, the tail wags the dog, the costs become the driver of the case rather than the underlying dispute."
The new laws will only apply to articles published after 1 July 2021. For online articles, defamation claims must be made within 12 months from the date of first publication
♦ www.sbs.com.au
Defamation law reforms 2021
National defamation law reform MinterEllison considers the changes
♦ www.minterellison.com PDF document downlaod
Overview
Australia's outdated defamation laws have long been slanted in favour of plaintiffs.
However, the 'plaintiff's bonanza' may be somewhat tempered by the recent passage of the Defamation Amendment Bill 2020 (NSW) (Bill) on
6 August 2020.1 The Bill is based on a raft of reforms proposed by the Council of Attorneys-General in late July.
It is expected that identical copies will be passed in all other states and territories.
The amendments signal to the courts that the balance must shift towards freedom of expression.
Among the most significant inclusions are:
▪ a 'serious harm' element to weed out trivial claims;
▪ a dedicated public interest defence for reports on matters of public concern;
▪ a single publication rule so that the limitation period for online publications runs from the date the material is first
uploaded rather than each time it is downloaded;
▪ clarification that a defendant may 'pleadback' aplaintiff’s imputations to establish a defence of contextual truth;
and
▪ provisions aimed at clarifying the statutory cap for damages for non-economic loss.
Defamation law remains a 'Frankenstein’s monster' of 'countless complications and piecemeal reforms riveted to the rusting hulk of a centuries’ old cause of action',2 but these reforms represent a significant improvement. However, the effectiveness of the new provisions will largely hinge on how they are interpreted by courts.
Lawyers who act for plaintiffs have a different view.
Coalition of lawyers call for ‘flawed’ defamation reforms to be axed
♦ www.smh.com.au A group of prominent defamation lawyers has urged state and territory governments to abandon
a nationally-agreed set of reforms to the country’s defamation laws,
just hours after NSW, Victoria and South Australia announced the laws would commence on July 1.
Sydney barrister Sue Chrysanthou, SC, who is acting for federal Liberal minister Christian Porter
in his defamation case against the ABC, is among the signatories to a briefing note circulated to state MPs on Thursday,
which condemns the changes as “fundamentally flawed” and calls for them to be scrapped.
Defamation is something that:
"lower/harm (some person's) reputation,hold the(some person) up to ridicule, or lead others to shun and avoid the (the person)"
The defence is its true or is "qualified privilege", which applies when you have an interest or a legal, social or moral duty to communicate something to a person and that person has a corresponding interest or duty to receive the information.
I do think I have a duty to inform other survivors and the general public about Jesuit sex abuse and the difficulties they will face if they make a complaint.
Many survivors have found this website very helpful to them in their quest for justice and self-recovery.
And a lot of it is information that they could not have got anywhere else.
However the defence will fail if the plaintiff can show that you were actually motivated by malice to make the communication.
Malice is what Robert richter QC tried to show in his examination of the Broken Rites man in the Pell trial. "you were out to get the catholic church, weren't you?"
Defamation does not apply to private conversations. So when Brian McCoy SJ said to other people that I am "a danger to myself and others", "obsessed", "demanding", "abused people on retreat" it is not defamation.
Generally corporations can't sue for defamation, there is an exception.
1. it is a non-profit corporation and not a public body (such as a local government or public authority); or
2. it employs less than 10 people, is not related to another corporation and is not a public body.
(BTW. My lawyer is Mr. Google QC).
Defamation awards
Chau Chak Wing awarded $590,000 in defamation case over ABC Four Corners episode
Chinese-Australian billionaire wins case and ABC restrained from republishing parts of episode
Chinese-Australian billionaire Chau Chak Wing has been awarded $590,000 in damages after winning his defamation case over an ABC Four Corners episode.
The businessman, philanthropist and political donor sued the broadcaster, Nine and Nick McKenzie,
an investigative reporter at the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald, over the joint report.
McKenzie presented the 2017 program and the investigation included an accompanying article on the ABC website.
♦ www.theguardian.com