Campbell v Regional Publishers Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 104

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Campbell v Regional Publishers Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 104 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20916/97 HEARING DATE(S) : 16 April 1999 JUDGMENT DATE : 2 March 2000

PARTIES : Margaret Campbell - Plaintiff Regional Publishers Pty Ltd - Defendant JUDGMENT OF : Simpson J

COUNSEL : M Rollinson - Plaintiff T D Blackburn - Defendant SOLICITORS : Daly Bussoletti & Co - Plaintiff Gilbert & Tobin - Defendant CASES CITED : Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 DECISION : Order that imputations pleaded in paragraphs 3(b) - (e) and 6(a) - (d) be struck out.

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

SIMPSON J

2 March 2000

20916/97 Margaret CAMPBELL v REGIONAL PUBLISHERS Judgment

HER HONOUR : 1 The plaintiff, Margaret Campbell, sues the defendant, Regional Publishers Pty Ltd, the publisher of the Macleay Argus, a newspaper which apparently circulates in the Kempsey area in NSW. The plaintiff claims that two articles published respectively on 1 February 1992 and 6 February 1992 contained imputations which defamed her. The defendant challenges the capacity of either publication to convey any except one of the imputations pleaded. 2 Photocopies of the two articles are appended to the statement of claim. Although they cannot be seen in the context of the whole of the newspaper in which they were contained, they appear to be published as new items. Their subject matter is reported ongoing disputes and disturbances at a local Aboriginal child care centre called the Ngaku Multi Purpose Child Care Centre. 3 In the first item, reference was made to graffiti, vandalism, breaking into and entry of, and even bombing of the Centre, and threatening telephone calls made to the administrator. The administrator, who was identified as Ms Andrea Douglas, was extensively quoted both directly and indirectly. She was reported as having called a public meeting of Aboriginal groups and the "white hierarchy" of the town to expose "racism, ignorance and the disgusting acts on the Centre". It is convenient to extract some paragraphs from the report: "Mrs Douglas, 44, said she believed the attacks on the centre were directed at her because she was perceived as an 'uptown nigger' because of her job and education, and a police informer. The Aboriginal community had not liked it when she was called in to audit the centre's books after the former administrator allegedly misappropriated funds, or because other members of her family had been employed at the centre. 'If they think by destroying the centre they're destroying me, they're not. They're just making the white people in this town richer,' she said. 'I got myself where I am and they're not going to pull me down.'" 4 A little later a local police officer was quoted as saying that he did not know who was responsible for the incidents at the Centre, but that it may have been juveniles, and that he did not think that the bombing was connected to the other trouble at the Centre. 5 The plaintiff is nowhere named in this news item. However she was and was known to be the former administrator of the Centre, and the defendant accordingly acknowledged that the passage extracted above would be taken by reasonable readers to refer to her. 6 The plaintiff pleads that this article, in its natural and ordinary meaning, conveys five imputations defamatory of her. She pleads them as follows: "3 (a) The Plaintiff misappropriated funds. (b) The Plaintiff bombed the Ngaku Centre. (c) The Plaintiff vandalised the Ngaku Centre. (d) The Plaintiff broke into the Ngaku Centre. (e) The Plaintiff made threatening phone calls to Andrea Douglas." 7 She further alleges that the item conveyed the same five imputations, plus a sixth, to readers with knowledge of certain extrinsic facts. The sixth imputation alleged to have been conveyed to such readers was framed as follows: "(f) The Plaintiff made a graffiti attack on the Ngaku Centre." 8 The extrinsic facts pleaded are the following: "(a) The Plaintiff was the former administrator of the Ngaku Centre. (b) The Plaintiff was a member of the Kempsey Aboriginal community. (c) Andrea Douglas is an Aboriginal. (d) Andrea Douglas was appointed administrator of the Ngaku Centre after the administration of the plaintiff. (e) Andrea Douglas criticised the administration of the plaintiff. (f) The plaintiff and her family were not on good terms with Andrea Douglas and her family". 9 The second publication appeared five days later. It reported a bomb explosion at Ms Douglas' home. Police were reported as expressing the view that the bombing may have been related to the bombing of the Centre, and of RTA offices the previous year, and that it might also have been related "to a feud between two Aboriginal families". Again, the plaintiff is not named in this item, nor is she referred to by reference to her position as the former administrator of the Centre as was the case in the first article. The plaintiff claims this publication in its natural and ordinary meaning conveyed four imputations defamatory of her. They are pleaded as follows: 6(a) The Plaintiff bombed the home of Andrea Douglas. (b) The Plaintiff bombed the Ngaku Centre. (c) The Plaintiff vandalised the Ngaku Centre. (d) The Plaintiff broke into the Ngaku Centre."