AUSTRALIAN CONSOLIDATED PRESS LIMITED V. BRIDGES

IN THE HIGH COURT . OF AUSTRALIA

| AUSTRALIAN CONSOLIDATED PRESS sveneeeenent ne PEY;~ LEME PED ~ ne

BRIDGES

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Oral Judgment delivered at.... Wednesday 28

( /le_

ae

AUSTRALIAN CONSOLIDATED PRESS Pry. LIMITED

Ve

BARRY JOHN BRIDGES

ORDER

Appeal dismissed with costs.

AUSTRALIAN CONSOLIDATED PRESS PIY. LIMITED

Vo

BARRY JOHN BRIDGES

JUDGMENT BARWICK C.Je (ORAL)

AUSTRALIAN CONSOLIDATED PRESS Pry. LIMITED

Ve

BARRY JOHN BRIDGES

The Court has had the opportunity to consider this matter.

'A jury of twelve, in an action in the Supreme Court of New South Wales brought by the respondent against the appellant for defamation, returned a verdict for the respondent for, $20,000. An appeal to the Court of Appeal Division by the appellant was dismissed.

The appellant has pursued before this Court, with one omission, the same grounds of appeal as those it placed before the Supreme Court, The article found to be defamatory, the innuendoes it was conceded to be capable of bearing and the various grounds of appeal are sufficiently recited in the reasons for judgment given by Mr. Justice Mason in dismissing the appeal to the Supreme

Court. Mr. Justice Jacobs and Mr. Justice Moffitt agreed

with those reasons. Consequently I have no need to repeat

2.

any of that material.

We have heard a comprehensive argument by senior counsel for the appellant covering the various grounds of appeal; but having considered all that has been said and the authorities to which we have been referred I am not persuaded that the Supreme Court was in error in any of the conclusions which Mr. Justice Mason expressed. Further, with the qualifications I will mention, I would be prepared to dismiss this appeal for the reasons given by Mr. Justice Mason for those conclusions.

However, in my opinion the proper answer to the submission that the trial Judge was in error in not excluding from the consideration of the jury as capable of a defamatory meaning the last three paragraphs in the article is that his Honour was bound to leave the whole article for the jury's opinion whether it carried one or more of the innuendoes of which it was capable. The article as a whole was the subject of complaint and, whilst it was proper to tell the jury that it was defamation of the plaintiff and not of the Labor Party with which they were concerned, the whole of the article was for their considération as to whether or not it was defamatory. It is an error, in my opinion, to attempt to isolate portions of an article sued upon as a whole into segments some of which, if standing alone, might not be capable of bearing a defamatory meaning. Questions as to