New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Ranse v Nationwide News P/L [2000] NSWSC 697 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division Defamation List FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20156/00 HEARING DATE(S) : 07/07/2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 21 July 2000 PARTIES : Albert John Ranse (Pl) Nationwide News Pty Limited (ACN 008 438 828) (Def) JUDGMENT OF : Kirby J COUNSEL : T Molomy (Pl) T Blackburn (Def) SOLICITORS : Stephen Hodges, sol (Pl) Blake Dawson Waldron (Def) CATCHWORDS : Defamation - Capacity of material to carry imputations CASES CITED : Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 DECISION : Ref para 11 THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION KIRBY J Friday 21 July 2000 20156/00 - Albert John RANSE v NATIONWIDE NEWS PTY LTD (ACN 008 438 828) JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: Mr Albert John Ranse has commenced an action for defamation against Nationwide News Pty Limited (the defendant), the publisher of The Australian newspaper. On 28 March 2000 The Australian newspaper published an article under the following headline: "Newman Murder Confessor 'Drunk'" 2 The article which followed was in these terms: "A man who was secretly recorded by the Nine network admitting to the murder of NSW Labor MP John Newman said yesterday the confession came during a 'drunken stupour' (sic) at the lowest ebb in his life. The NSW Supreme Court heard yesterday that Albert Ranse, a former local government councillor, was taped telling Marion Le, who was helping Nine prepare a documentary on the 1994 murder, that he was Mr Newman's killer. He told the court the confession followed a long shift as a welfare worker, a heavy drinking session and weeks of 'extreme stress' stemming from family difficulties. He said Ms Le, with whom he had developed a friendship, had agreed to pick him up from outside a city pub about 3pm on February 21 last year. The pair drove to The Rocks in a car fitted with a concealed camera and sound listening device. Crown prosecutor Mark Tedeschi asked Mr Ranse: 'Did you know that you were being videotaped and audiotaped during this conversation with Ms Le?' 'No, certainly not', Mr Ranse said. 'Did you consent?' 'Oh my God, no. I remember saying to her that she asked some very strange questions. 'She was saying '9.36, 9.36, say it Albert, say it' … she said 'you know you killed him.'' Mr Ranse said that on the night of the shooting, September 5, 1994, he was at home, drunk and asleep. Another former councillor, Phuong Canh Ngo, and Tu Quang Dao are on traial for Newman's murder. The trial continues today, subject to the health of an ill juror." 3 The Statement of Claim asserts that the words, in their natural and ordinary meaning, gave rise to the following imputations defamatory of the plaintiff: (a) that he committed a murder. (b) that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that he committed a murder. (c) that he is a person who confessed to having committed a murder." 4 The defendant argues that imputation (a) does not arise. Only a reader avid for scandal would infer that the plaintiff had, in fact, murdered John Newman. 5 In support of that argument, the defendant pointed to three matters. First, the text of the article contains a number of significant qualifications upon the reliability of the confession. It was made in "a drunken stupor", when Mr Ranse's life was at its "lowest ebb". It followed "a long shift as a welfare worker, a heavy drinking session, and weeks of 'extreme stress' stemming from family difficulties." Secondly, it was plainly untrue. On the night of the shooting, Mr Ranse was at home, drunk, asleep. Thirdly, and most importantly, two other persons, Phuong Canh Ngo and Tu Quang Dao were on trial for Mr Newman's murder, not Mr Ranse. 6 Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr Molomby, responded to these arguments in a number of ways. He pointed to the headline. Mr Ranse is described as "Newman Murder Confessor". He pointed to the text, and especially the first four paragraphs. It is said, and said repeatedly, that Mr Ranse had confessed to the murder of Mr Newman. Mr Ranse was secretly recorded "admitting to the murder of NSW Labor MP John Newman …" The interviewer said, "Say it Albert, say it….you know you killed him." 7 Nowhere does the article say that Mr Ranse is not the murderer, nor that the confession was untrue. The reference to his being in a drunken stupor is not, according to the plaintiff, a qualification upon the truth or accuracy of the confession. Rather, it is an explanation as to how it was that Mr Ranse came to confess; how it came to slip out. People, even drunk people, do not ordinarily confess to murder, unless they are involved. 8 The only matter, on the plaintiff's argument, which may be seen as a qualification to the confession, is Mr Ranse's assertion that he was at home, "drunk and asleep", on the night that the murder took place. The ordinary reasonable reader, when contrasting that assertion with a confession which had been secretly televised and recorded, would see that as simply an attempt by Mr Ranse to advance an alibi, and a poor alibi at that. 9 On the plaintiff's argument, the fact that two other persons are standing trial for murder does not prevent the imputation arising. First, there may be separate trials for different accused in relation to the same murder. Secondly, those standing trial, accused of Mr Newman's murder, are presumed innocent. Here is someone, Mr Ranse, who had actually confessed, in front of cameras and a recording device, to the very murder. It is not unknown that an accused person, as part of his defence, may point to a witness, and suggest that he or she is the real killer. Thirdly, Mr Ranse is identified as a former local government councillor. Mr Ngo, one of the accused, is likewise identified as "another former councillor". There are links between them, strengthening the likelihood that the confession, made in an unguarded moment, was true. 10 The test ultimately is one of reasonableness (Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at 165), acknowledging that the ordinary reasonable reader may engage in a certain amount of loose thinking. I believe the article is capable of conveying imputation (a). It should, therefore, go to the jury. 11 I make the following orders: 1. The defendant's application is dismissed. 2. The defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs. ********** Last Modified: 09/26/2000 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.