Media Law: Breach of Privacy, Defamation, and Sub-judice Contempt

This article discusses the media law issues of breach of privacy, defamation, and sub-judice contempt in the case involving Political Insider, Queensland Senator Maria Megabucks, her ex-husband Con Merchant, and a sexually assaulted teenage girl. It explores the implementation of the law, defenses for the defendant, relevant case laws, and suggestions for Political Insider.

Running head: MEDIA LAW
Media Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1
MEDIA LAW
The main media law issues arising in this case is the breach of privacy, defamation
and sub-judice contempt by the Canberra gossip blog named Political Insider involving
Queensland Senator Maria Megabucks, her ex-husband, Con Merchant and a 16 years old girl
who was sexual assaulted. The media law issues involve information regarding the Senator’s
private life was talked about involving her malicious ex-husband Con Merchant who had
raped her along with a discussion on a sib-judice case related to a sexually assaulted teenage
girl. Information regarding such issues tend to be sensitive and needs permission to publish
articles on such issues, from the person related to it.
Invasion of Privacy
1. Media law issue
On the first place, the Gossip blog received an email from the chief adviser of the last
Public Works Minister harry Highpants who was replaced by Senator Maria Megabucks
which contained the information about her disturbed marital life with her ex-husband Con
Merchant. It also contained information about her past occupation as a director in a family
construction business which went into liquidation. Therefore, re-assessing such allegation
implies violation of privacy of Maria Megabucks who holds a respectable position at present
and any such discussion about her past life would be taken as an invasion of privacy.
2. Implementation of law and defences for the defendant
The privacy law in Australia is governed by the Common Law as well as certain
Commonwealth, state and territorial laws. The Australian Law Reform Commission has
suggested dividing privacy into Information privacy, Bodily privacy, privacy of
communication and territorial privacy. This paper revolves around Information Privacy and
Privacy of communication; the former is related to collecting and handling personal data like

2
MEDIA LAW
personal records and credit information, while the latter deals with security of conversation
made through mails, telephone, e-mail, et cetera.
Under Common law, the decision held in Victoria Park Racing and Recreation
Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor(Victoria Park) [1937] HCA 45 was an obstacle in establishing
invasion of privacy which was completely changed after the decision held in Australian
Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 63 which overruled the
decision of Victoria park. In Giller v Procopets [2008] VSCA 236 it was held by the Court of
Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria that damages must be made available for cases
where a breach of confidence occasioning distress is proved, as equitable compensation or
under a statutory law.
The Australian Law Reform Commission has held certain defences in case a
defendant needs to defend his case for charges of violation of privacy. It includes:
a) an act that involve the exercise of a lawful right of defence against oneself and one’s
property;
b) an act that was required and authorised by the law;
c) dissemination of such information was required for public interest and it was fair; and
d) such disclosure of classified information is guarded by privilege under defamation law.
Therefore, for defending itself from the charges of breach of privacy, Political
Insider could cite that the dissemination of the information receive from the advisor of Harry
Highpants was beneficial for public interest and it was fair to let the people know about such
scandalous Senator and her past life with Con Merchant, who is as scandalous as his ex-wife.
3. Case Laws
As for Privacy law in Australia, it is governed by the Common Law as well as certain
Commonwealth, state and territorial laws. While, defamation is solely guarded by the
Common law in the country; apart from certain state law, there is no federal law that deals

3
MEDIA LAW
with defamation in Australia. Before 2001, right to privacy have no recognition is Australia;
however, after the Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd [2001]
HCA 63 case, a cause of action arises pertaining to a breach of privacy when established by
meeting all the essential elements. The Privacy Act 1988 is the federal legislation for
guarding the invasion of privacy, while the Invasion of Privacy Act 1971 and Information
privacy Act 2009 are the legislations in Queensland that may be used by Maria Megabucks
and Con Merchant for seeking remedy under the privacy law.
4. Suggestion to Political Insider
Political Insider, a gossip blog would be suggested to be equipped with defences
pertaining to the invasion of privacy of Maria Megabucks and Con Merchant by stating that
the act was necessary either to exercise a right of defence against oneself and one’s property;
or the act was required and authorised by the law; or dissemination of such information was
required for public interest and it was fair; and it would add a gravitas if the defendant could
cite that such disclosure of classified information was guarded by privilege under defamation
law.
Defamation
1. Media law issue
Political Insider should not have played with such information received from the chief
advisor of Harry Highpants, which may be disseminated to defame both Maria Megabucks
and Con Merchant. The email contained information about their past life as husband wife,
along with their strained relation where Maria was raped by her ex-husband Con Merchant.
Here, it could be a probable media law issue if Political Insider publishes such information
without verifying and confirming the authenticity of the information that it received from
such malicious source that has every possibility to try to defame Maria Megabucks, for she

4
MEDIA LAW
replaced harry Highpants. In addition, Con Merchant had raped his the-then wife Maria
Megabucks yet was acquitted by the Magistrate. Therefore, re-assessing such allegation
implies defamation of Mr Merchant which could prove to be extremely harmful for him being
a part of a construction company where he is about to get through a highway construction
deal.
2. Implementation of law and defences for the defendant
Defamation law is mostly governed by the Common law which strives to protect
people’s reputation from false allegations and rumours. A claim under defamation could be
established if it is proved that a third party had communicated false information to another
with an intention to damage such person’s reputation. It needs to be proved that: a) the
defamatory information was disseminated and hence published; b) the person so defamed
could clearly be identified from such defamatory information; and c) the defamatory
information has caused material harm or damage to the person so defamed. In such situation,
the defamed person can seek legal help by brining legal action against such person defaming
the plaintiff.
an act of defamation can be defended by stating that:
a) the publication of the information labelled as defamation is true and an honest
opinion,
b) the publication is beneficial for public interest,
c) the publication was important for social, moral or legal purpose,
d) the publication is not likely to harm the plaintiff’s reputation.
e) the defendant did not know that the publication contained a defamatory content,
f) the publication is guarded by privileges, like parliamentary debates or court
proceedings.

5
MEDIA LAW
Political Insider can defend itself against the defamation charges by establishing
that the publication of the information was true and an honest opinion; also that the
publication is beneficial for public interest for the public to know about such scandalous
people and lastly because the publication was important for social, moral or legal purpose.
3. Case Laws
Defamation has no such legislation guarding it, but the Common law; except for
certain state legislations like Defamation Act 2005 (Vic). Wilson v Bauer Media Pty
Ltd [2017] VSC 521 is a famous Australian case where the actress Rabel Wilson had brought
a legal action against Bauer Media that published the ‘Women’s Day’ Magazine. The
magazine had published about Rebel lying about her name, age and other information about
her life. She was awarded $650,000 as general damages and $3,917,472 as special damages
from the law suit.
4. Suggestion to Political Insider
Political Insider should also be prepared for the defamation litigation where it should
lay down in its defence that the publication of the information labelled as defamation is true
and an honest opinion; the publication is beneficial for public interest, the publication was
important for social, moral or legal purpose, the publication is not likely to harm the
plaintiff’s reputation or that the defendant did not know that the publication contained a
defamatory content.
Sub-judice Contempt
1. Media law issue

6
MEDIA LAW
Dissemination of information regarding a sub-judice case related to a sexual assault of
a 16 year old girl is sensitive in nature which should be brought to public notice before it is
dealt by the court, for it may give rise to public aggression. In this case, Political Insider
could be held liable by the court for tampering with the information of sexual assault
involving a teenage girl, who was assaulted by Con Merchant. Such dissemination of
information has every possibility to disrupt the process of justice administration.
2. Implementation of law and defences for the defendant
Sub-judice contempt refers to the offence which involves dissemination of
information regarding sub-judice cases, pending before the court. Dissemination of
information of sub-judice cases have every possibility to disrupt the process of justice
administration. It is prohibited by law for it disturbs the course of judicial conduct and
influence public aggression which is not safe for the victim as well as for the defendant.
An act of sub-judice contempt can only be defended by stating that dissemination of
such information was significant for public interest. Public Insider needs to state that the
people needed to know the real face of Con Merchant and therefore, it was necessary to
expose him.
3. Case Laws
In John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd v McRae (1955) 93 CLR 351 the court held defendant
guilty of contempt of sub-judice proceeding who was alleged to have interfered with the
regular course of administration of justice.
The Common law governs the laws and regulation relating to sub-judice contempt in
Australia.
4. Suggestion to Political Insider
It is suggested to Political Insider to be prepared to defend its actions by holding the
fact that dissemination of such information was significant for public interest. Public Insider

7
MEDIA LAW
needs to state that the people needed to know the real face of Con Merchant and therefore, it
was necessary to expose him.

8
MEDIA LAW
References
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 63
Defamation Act 2005 (Vic)
Giller v Procopets [2008] VSCA 236
Information privacy Act 2009
Invasion of Privacy Act 1971
John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd v McRae (1955) 93 CLR 351
Privacy Act 1988
Victoria Park Racing and Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor [1937] HCA 45
Wilson v Bauer Media Pty Ltd [2017] VSC 521