West Australian Newspapers Ltd v Bridge [1979] HCA 10

High Court of Australia Barwick C.J. Gibbs, Stephen, Jacobs and Aickin JJ. West Australian Newspapers Ltd v Bridge [1979] HCA 10

ORDER Appeal dismissed with costs.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

1979, March 13 Barwick C.J.

The applicant was a defendant in an action in the Supreme Court of Western Australia for defamation of the first respondent. The publication of the defamatory matter was in a daily newspaper published by the applicant. The second respondent was also a defendant in the action. As one of its defences, the applicant had pleaded in the language of s. 357 (8) of the Criminal Code of Western Australia ("the Code") enacted by and as a schedule to the Criminal Code Act, 1913 W.A. ("the Act").

At the conclusion of the trial before a jury, the presiding judge stated a case for the opinion of a Full Court upon two questions, namely: (A) Is s. 357 (8) of the Code available as a defence in these proceedings? (B) If Yes: Are there any elements of that defence as relate to question (iii) asked of the jury, questions of law for the decision of the trial judge?

The Full Court by majority (Burt C.J. and Brinsden J., Wallace J. dissenting) answered the first question in the negative and found no need to answer the second [42] . In consequence of these answers the trial judge held that s. 357 did not provide a defence in the action.

1. [1978] W.A.R. 177.

The answer to the first question asked of the Full Court is to be found in the construction of the Act and the Code. We have had the assistance of arguments in writing which have discussed the opposing views on the question.

Having read and considered these arguments, the Act, the Code and the reasons for judgment of the Chief Justice and judges of the Supreme Court, I am of opinion that the answer given by that Court to the first question was correct.