Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd

Last updated
Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Decided 12 October 1994
Citation(s) [1994] HCA 46, (1994) 182  CLR  104
Court membership
Judges sitting Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh JJ

Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd [1] is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. The matter related to implied freedom of political communication that the High Court has inferred, rests in the Australian constitution.

Australia Country in Oceania

Australia, officially the Commonwealth of Australia, is a sovereign country comprising the mainland of the Australian continent, the island of Tasmania and numerous smaller islands. It is the largest country in Oceania and the world's sixth-largest country by total area. The neighbouring countries are Papua New Guinea, Indonesia and East Timor to the north; the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu to the north-east; and New Zealand to the south-east. The population of 25 million is highly urbanised and heavily concentrated on the eastern seaboard. Australia's capital is Canberra, and its largest city is Sydney. The country's other major metropolitan areas are Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide.

In law, a judgment is a decision of a court regarding the rights and liabilities of parties in a legal action or proceeding. Judgments also generally provide the court's explanation of why it has chosen to make a particular court order.

High Court of Australia supreme court

The High Court of Australia is the supreme court in the Australian court hierarchy and the final court of appeal in Australia. It has both original and appellate jurisdiction, the power of judicial review over laws passed by the Parliament of Australia and the parliaments of the states, and the ability to interpret the Constitution of Australia and thereby shape the development of federalism in Australia.

Contents

Background

Andrew Theophanous had been an Australian Labor Party member of the Australian House of Representatives since 1980. In 1992, he was the chairperson of the Joint Parliamentary Standing Committee on Migration. The Herald and Weekly Times published an article by Bruce Ruxton, "Give Theophanous the shove", which stated that Theophanous "appears to want a bias shown towards Greeks as migrants". Theophanous sued the Herald & Weekly Times and Ruxton for defamation. [1]

Andrew Charles Theophanous is a former Australian politician. He was an Australian Labor Party member of the Australian House of Representatives from 1980 to 2000, and an independent member from 2000 to 2001. He was later jailed for bribery and fraud offences relating to visa applications and other immigration matters.

Australian Labor Party Political party in Australia

The Australian Labor Party is a major centre-left political party in Australia. The party has been in opposition at the federal level since the 2013 election. Bill Shorten has been the party's federal parliamentary leader since 13 October 2013. The party is a federal party with branches in each state and territory. Labor is in government in the states of Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, and in both the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory. The party competes against the Liberal/National Coalition for political office at the federal and state levels. It is the oldest political party in Australia.

Australian House of Representatives Lower house of Australia

The House of Representatives is the lower house of the bicameral Parliament of Australia, the upper house being the Senate. Its composition and powers are established in Chapter I of the Constitution of Australia.

Decision

The judgment held that there was an implied constitutional freedom to publish material discussing government and political matters as well as the way that members of the Parliament of Australia conducted their duties and their suitability for office.

Parliament of Australia legislative branch of the Commonwealth of Australia

The Parliament of Australia is the legislative branch of the government of Australia. It consists of three elements: the Crown, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The combination of two elected chambers, in which the members of the Senate represent the states and territories while the members of the House represent electoral divisions according to population, is modelled on the United States Congress. Through both chambers, however, there is a fused executive, drawn from the Westminster system.

Significance

Just three years later, with a change in the composition of the High Court, [2] the court unanimously reversed the opinion in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation . It held that no direct right to free speech could form a defence to defamation. Still, the case remains important in the development of the implied freedom. [3]

<i>Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation</i>

Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation is a High Court of Australia case that upheld the existence of an implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution however that did not itself provide a defence to a defamation action. The High Court extended the defence of qualified privilege to be compatible with the freedom of political communication. The High Court found that the ABC had defamed Lange.

Related Research Articles

Ian Callinan Australian judge

Ian David Francis Callinan AC QC is a former Justice of the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian court hierarchy.

Tortlaw in Australia consists of both common law and, to a lesser extent, legislation. A tort is a civil wrong, other than a breach of contract. Torts may be sued upon by private individuals against other private individuals to correct a form of conduct or wrong. A large number of torts exist, and they generally derive their legal status from the common law. Since a court can define an existing tort or even recognise new ones through the common law, tort law is sometimes regarded as limitless and adaptable to modern circumstances.

Australian constitutional law

Australian constitutional law is the area of the law of Australia relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Australia. Several major doctrines of Australian constitutional law have developed.

Owen Dixon Australian judge and diplomat

Sir Owen Dixon was an Australian judge and diplomat who served as the sixth Chief Justice of Australia. A judge of the High Court for thirty-five years, Dixon was one of the leading jurists in the English-speaking world and is widely regarded as Australia's greatest-ever jurist.

<i>Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd</i>

Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd, commonly known as the Engineers case, was a landmark decision by the High Court of Australia on 31 August 1920. The immediate issue concerned the Commonwealth's power under s51(xxxv) of the Constitution but the Court did not confine itself to that question, using the opportunity to roam broadly over constitutional interpretation.

<i>Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth</i>

Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth, was a significant case decided in the High Court of Australia on 30 September 1992. It concerned the constitutional validity of Part IIID of the Political Broadcasts and Political Disclosures Act 1991, which regulated political advertising during election campaigns, and required broadcasters to broadcast political advertisements free of charge at other times. The High Court found the laws to be invalid, since they contravened an implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution.

Section 109 of the Constitution of Australia deals with the legislative inconsistency between federal and state laws and declares that valid federal laws override inconsistent State laws, to the extent of the inconsistency. Section 109 is analogous to the Supremacy Clause in the United States Constitution and the Paramountcy doctrine in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence, and the jurisprudence in one jurisdictions is considered persuasive in the others.

Section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution of Australia is a subsection of Section 51 of the Constitution of Australia, providing that the Commonwealth has the power to make laws with respect to "the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws." It is both a power and a constitutional guarantee of just compensation for property rights contingent on its exercise.

In Australian constitutional law, Chapter III Courts are courts of law which are a part of the Australian federal judiciary and thus are able to discharge Commonwealth judicial power. They are so named because the prescribed features of these courts are contained in Chapter III of the Australian Constitution.

<i>Cole v Whitfield</i>

Cole v Whitfield, was a landmark High Court of Australia decision where the Court overruled two long settled approaches to the interpretation of the Constitution, that no regard could be had to the debates of Constitutional Conventions in the interpretation of the Constitution, and that the words "absolutely free" in Section 92 of the Constitution of Australia, protected a personal individual right of freedom in interstate trade. It was instead replaced with the economic notion of "free trade" in that interstate trade was not to be subject to discriminatory burdens of a protectionist kind. Despite being a unanimous judgment, the decision remains controversial.

<i>Coleman v Power</i>

Coleman v Power (2004) 220 CLR 1 is a High Court of Australia case that deals with the implied freedom of political communication found in the Australian Constitution.

Court of Disputed Returns (Australia)

The Court of Disputed Returns in Australia is a special jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia. This jurisdiction was initially established by Part XVI of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902 and is now contained in Part XXII of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. The High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns hears challenges regarding the validity of federal elections. The jurisdiction is twofold: (1) on a petition to the Court by an individual with a relevant interest or by the Australian Electoral Commission, or (2) on a reference by either house of the Commonwealth Parliament.

Constitution of Australia the supreme law of Australia

The Constitution of Australia is the supreme law under which the government of the Commonwealth of Australia operates, including its relationship to the States of Australia. It consists of several documents. The most important is the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, which is referred to as the "Constitution" in the remainder of this article. The Constitution was approved in a series of referendums held over 1898–1900 by the people of the Australian colonies, and the approved draft was enacted as a section of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp), an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

Section 116 of the Constitution of Australia precludes the Commonwealth of Australia from making laws for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. Section 116 also provides that no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. The product of a compromise in the pre-Federation constitutional conventions, Section 116 is based on similar provisions in the United States Constitution. However, Section 116 is more narrowly drafted than its US counterpart, and does not preclude the states of Australia from making such laws.

In Australia, the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity defines the circumstances in which Commonwealth laws can bind the States, and where State laws can bind the Commonwealth. This is distinct from the doctrine of crown immunity, as well as the rule expressed in Section 109 of the Australian Constitution which governs conflicts between Commonwealth and State laws.

<i>Monis v The Queen</i>

Monis v The Queen, is a High Court of Australia case that dealt with the implied freedom of political communication in relation to whether or not the government may criminalise sending offensive messages through the postal system.

<i>Brown v Tasmania</i>

Brown v Tasmania, was a significant Australian court case, decided in the High Court of Australia on 18 October 2017. The case was an important decision about the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution in which the majority held that provisions of the Tasmanian Protesters Act. were invalid as a burden on the implied freedom of political communication in a way that was not reasonably appropriate and adapted, or proportionate, to the legitimate purpose of protecting businesses and their operations.

References

  1. 1 2 Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd [1994] HCA 46 , (1994) 182  CLR  104.
  2. Mason) CJ and Deane J had retired and Gummow J and Kirby J had been appointed.
  3. Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [1997] HCA 25 , (1997) 189  CLR  520.

Further reading

George Williams (lawyer) Professor of Law

George John Williams is an Australian academic specialising in Australian constitutional law and Dean of the Law Faculty at the University of New South Wales.