Login
Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
With Cardinal George Pell now free from Barwon Prison, attention has turned to whether he has any grounds to pursue a defamation claim against the media.
Just a week after being acquitted of child sexual abuse convictions, Cardinal Pell has told a commentator from a Melbourne-based media company the ABC’s reporting of his case was largely one-sided and a “betrayal of national interest” financed by Catholic taxes.
With Cardinal Pell’s supporters now turning their attention to whether media – which does include the ABC, but many others – defamed him at any point, Lawyers Weekly talked to Marque Lawyers managing partner Michael Bradley on media defamation law.
“With defamation, the question is always ‘what did you say’ or ‘what did you publish’, and motivation doesn’t form part of that equation,” Mr Bradley said when questioned about an opportunity and potential for bias in any articles concerning Cardinal Pell.
“It’s a question of what statements were made and what they conveyed to the audience – if a broadcaster or publisher was motivated by bias which then translated into its language or editorial choices made, then they might have exposed themselves to a defamation suit because it may [impact their] ability to run the defences that are available to them.”
In terms of this case, does Cardinal Pell stand a chance of successfully arguing the ABC or other media defamed him? According to Mr Bradley, if he does, he will be in a difficult position because “he’d have to show that what was published wasn’t true”.
First, Mr Bradley said that if the media reported the facts of the case – that at some point he was accused of certain actions and was convicted of those actions, he then lost appeal and then won the second appeal – then there is no scope for him to pursue defamation.
However, “if Pell can find something that someone broadcasted or published which went beyond that and implied that he was guilty of something he wasn’t, he might have a case”.
“Although, it would have to be something more than the media reporting on him as a guilty person after he was convicted, because at that time it was a fact. Although the conviction was later quashed, it doesn’t change the history of it,” Mr Bradley said. “The media was inclined to report on him as a convicted felon until the point that he wasn’t anymore.”
Mr Bradley said the other point is that if he does choose to sue someone, then he opens the opportunity for whoever he sues to prove the truth of the underlying allegations. This ultimately means media can prove that the facts they reported at the time were true in the eyes of the law – he was, once upon a time, a convicted felon. This is his legal risk.
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
Get breaking news
Naomi Neilson
