Should politicians be allowed to sue for defamation

Was this email forwarded to you?

Sign up for our free daily email newsletter at headnote.com.au

Daily wrap  

• NSW Liberals will not pursue legal action over council nominations paperwork blunder - ABC News
   

• Scale of pressure on Linda Reynolds over Brittany Higgins ‘rarely seen before or since’, Marise Payne tells court | Australian politics | The Guardian
   

• Record fine for fantasy sports betting company luring Australian gamblers with illegal offers | Gambling | The Guardian
   

• Children’s commissioner finds evidence of ‘most egregious’ human rights breaches in Australia | Australian police and policing | The Guardian
   

• Whistleblower claims he was told to fabricate data for AEC during Indigenous voice campaign | Indigenous voice to parliament | The Guardian
   

• The multimillion-dollar fight over 18 billboards on a busy Sydney road [SMH paywall]

  The prime advertising spot is at the centre of a four-year fight over the vexed question of how much motorists’ eyeballs are worth.

   

• Fortescue slams 'cynical distraction' in IP-theft case | The Courier | Ballarat, VIC [paywall]

  Fortescue staff who left to form their own rival startup challenged extensive search orders of their homes and offices as a cynical distraction to avoid properly defending allegations of trade secret theft, a court has been told.
   

• Former BBY exec convicted after nine years [The Australian paywall]

  The corporate regulator has secured a second criminal conviction relating to the dishonest conduct of key employees at stockbroker BBY, nine years after it collapsed.
   

  • 24-183MR Former BBY employee sentenced for aiding and abetting | ASIC
     

• EDO bid to delay Santos release [The Australian paywall]

  The Environmental Defenders Office has sought an extension to hand over documents related to the failed legal attempt to block Santos’ $5.7bn Barossa LNG development.

   

Editor’s picks

• With more lawsuits potentially looming, should politicians be allowed to sue for defamation?
   

• Commissioner of NSW Police v Murphy - NSW Caselaw

  [1] This is a somewhat Kafkaesque case. It concerns an individual’s attempt to have an apprehended domestic violence order (“ADVO”) revoked when that order had already expired or was about to expire. It involves the purported temporal extension of the order beyond its expiry date for the singular purpose of then having it revoked. It raises the ugly issue of court delays and highlights inconsistencies and ambiguities in official records as to what actually happened in court, and why it happened. Finally, it involves a possible outcome in this Court which has real potential to operate unjustly against an individual. To understand that deceptively enticing introduction, it is necessary to set out the process which is now before the Court and a history of the case in the court below.
   

• Government Debt Collection After Robodebt — Australian Public Law

  Our new research, conducted with colleagues at Melbourne Law School, highlights significant and enduring deficiencies in the legal frameworks concerning debt collection by government agencies. We propose reforms to improve the debt collection practices of public agencies and reduce the risk that government debt collection will cause further serious and unjustifiable harm.
   

• State of Queensland v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) & Ors; Commonwealth of Australia v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) & Ors; His Honour Judge Salvatore Paul Vasta v Mr Stradford (a pseudonym) & Ors [2024] HCATrans 53 (15 August 2024)

  MR HERZFELD: …As a matter of generalisation, counsel appearing in inferior courts are likely to be more junior and less able than those appearing in superior courts.

  STEWARD J: What is the basis for that observation?

  MR HERZFELD: It is common experience that as counsel become more senior, they seek to appear ‑ ‑ ‑

  STEWARD J: Your common experience?
   

• Alan Missen Oration 2024 - YouTube

  On 30 May the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights released its much anticipated report on its Inquiry into Australia’s Human Rights Framework. It outlined 17 detailed recommendations to reinvigorate this Framework and strengthen Australia’s commitment to human rights. Its core recommendation was the adoption of a National Human Rights Act. Josh Burns, MP, was the Chair of this Committee which received 335 submissions and heard from 87 witnesses. Join us to hear from Josh as he outlines the nature, scope and justification for a National Human Rights Act and the other recommendations of the Committee.
   

 
Like our free newsletter? The best way to support us is to tell your colleagues and friends about our newsletter.

We welcome your feedback, which you can send to [email protected]