The Ageand theHerald did not instigate the litigation,and so,in that sense,had less agency than Roberts-Smith. The mastheads emerged unscathed;rare for a publisher in a case of this prominence. The credibility of the newspapers and three of their star journalists is enhanced.
Aspects of the case merit particular attention.
It is striking that this was,in substance,a war crimes trial masquerading as a defamation action. At the timeThe Ageand the Herald’s articles were published,Australian defamation law had a limited defence that protected publishers who had acted reasonably in all the circumstances. That defence has been widely perceived to be ineffective and was not relied upon by the newspapers. As a result,the focus at the trial was on whether the newspapers could prove the substantial truth of the allegations made by its sources,rather than the competence of the journalism.
While it is understandable that it played out that way,it is unsatisfactory. Allegations of war crimes deserve a criminal trial before a jury. It’s noteworthy that a private media organisation has been able to investigate,publish and defend these allegations when the Crown has been unable to bring a prosecution,despite its full array of coercive powers.
Roberts-Smith has not been charged with,let alone convicted of,anything,but will now forever wear the stain of having been found by a judge,to the civil standard,to be a war criminal. Further consequences may well follow,including a review of his honours and consideration of criminal prosecution.
Loading
The opposite result would also have been unsatisfactory. HadThe Ageand theHerald lost the case,the masthead would have been ordered to pay massive damages without there having been a focus on the merits of its journalism – how it researched,confirmed and checked what it reported. In other jurisdictions such as the UK and the US,those are the primary defences. At the time these stories were published,there was no defence in Australian law that considered whether this was a story that deserved to be told in the public interest.
And yet,that was surely the core of it. These were always stories that deserved to be told. It should not have required one of the most expensive trials in the nation’s history to establish that.
No publisher or broadcaster,however deep its pockets,can afford to defend many cases of this kind. The temptation for all media,in the face of the eye-watering costs and risks involved in preparing and then defending serious investigative journalism,is to retreat to cheaper and safer options;to prefer trivia over substance and comment over news. We may never know what important stories are spiked,or never pursued in the first place,because a publisher or broadcaster does not have the appetite or resources to fight for the public’s right to know.
Loading
At the same time,and just as disturbing,few plaintiffs have access to the resources necessary to pursue a case of this scale. Roberts-Smith was a rare exception.Because of those resources,he had options that are not available to most Australians. His decision to pursue this case has been exposed as an irretrievable mistake. But publishers and broadcasters,wary of litigation,know they face a higher cost for exposing suspected wrongdoing by the rich and powerful than by the rest of us. That is the precise opposite of the outcome our laws should strive to promote.
Dr Matt Collins AM KC is a media law barrister. He has represented Nine in a number of defamation disputes.
The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge,champion and inform your own.Sign up here.