Leyonhjelm v Hanson-Young [2021] FCAFC 22

Federal Court of Australia

Leyonhjelm v Hanson-Young [2021] FCAFC 22 Appeal from: Hanson-Young v Leyonhjelm (No 4) [2019] FCA 1981

File number(s): NSD 3 of 2020

Judgment of: RARES, WIGNEY and ABRAHAM JJ

Date of judgment: 3 March 2021

Catchwords: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – whether s 16 Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth) or Art 9 Bill of Rights 1688 (UK) precludes court hearing evidence or determining whether particular words were spoken in proceedings in Parliament – where dispute about words said by member in Chamber in course of proceedings in Parliament – whether lawful for court to take evidence of member of Parliament for purpose of deciding whether or what words were spoken in proceedings in Parliament – whether s 16 or Art 9 precludes court determining as a fact whether and what words spoken in proceedings in Parliament DEFAMATION – qualified privilege – whether statement outside Parliament relating to words spoken in proceedings in Parliament made on occasion of qualified privilege pursuant to s 30 Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) or the implied constitutional freedom of communication on government political matters – whether reasonable for publisher not to check own recollection of words spoken in debate before publishing matter complained of – where publisher politician and not professional journalist or commercial news media publisher DEFAMATION – malice – whether publisher actuated by malice in publishing matters complained of pursuant to s 30(4) Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) – whether publisher intended to shame political opponent by gratuitous attack going beyond what reasonably necessary to express publisher's views

Legislation: Defamation Act 1974 (Cth) s 22 Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth) s 16 Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) ss 25, 30 Bill of Rights 1688 (UK) Art 9 Claim of Rights Act 1689 (Sc) Law Reform Commission of New South Wales, Report on Defamation (Report 11, 1971)