New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council Case Summary
Summary for NSW Aboriginal Land Council Case
Justice of Appeal MEAGER
Counsel for the defendant suggested that the decision in Ballina Shire Council v Ringland (1994) 33 NSWLR 680 applied to this case and meant that the NSW Aboriginal Land Council could not sue for defamation. The decision was made by Chief Justice Gleeson and President Kirby that a council elected under the Local Government Act 1919 does not have sufficient powers or rights to make a claim for defamation.
The plaintiff argued that Ballina should be distinguished or the decision made in Ballina over-ruled. There is no necessity to over-rule the decision made in Ballina as this case can actually be distinguished.
South Hetton Coal Co v North-Easton News Association Ltd [1894] 1 QB 133-established that body corporate may sue for defamation.
Ballina Shire Council v Ringland (1994) 33 NSWLR 680-raised question of whether a public authority could sue for defamation, Australia’s leading authority in area.
Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534-Lord Keith said “It is of the highest public importance that a democratically elected governmental body, or indeed any governmental body, should be open to uninhibited public criticism.”
Reasoning- The “fundamental human right” Freedom of Speech-Democratic right-Government cannot claim for defamation-governing reputation unprotected under defamation-inconsistency between right to free speech and exercise of power by a democratically elected body exercising governmental powers.
Is the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council a democratically elected body exercising governmental powers for the purposes of the law of defamation?
“The election process only involves Aboriginals and is not democratic in the relevant sense because the only people entitled to vote are Aboriginals.”
“…the Council is not governmental in the relevant sense; it only has certain, limited, governmental powers over the Aboriginal portion of the New South
Justice of Appeal MEAGER
Counsel for the defendant suggested that the decision in Ballina Shire Council v Ringland (1994) 33 NSWLR 680 applied to this case and meant that the NSW Aboriginal Land Council could not sue for defamation. The decision was made by Chief Justice Gleeson and President Kirby that a council elected under the Local Government Act 1919 does not have sufficient powers or rights to make a claim for defamation.
The plaintiff argued that Ballina should be distinguished or the decision made in Ballina over-ruled. There is no necessity to over-rule the decision made in Ballina as this case can actually be distinguished.
South Hetton Coal Co v North-Easton News Association Ltd [1894] 1 QB 133-established that body corporate may sue for defamation.
Ballina Shire Council v Ringland (1994) 33 NSWLR 680-raised question of whether a public authority could sue for defamation, Australia’s leading authority in area.
Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534-Lord Keith said “It is of the highest public importance that a democratically elected governmental body, or indeed any governmental body, should be open to uninhibited public criticism.”
Reasoning- The “fundamental human right” Freedom of Speech-Democratic right-Government cannot claim for defamation-governing reputation unprotected under defamation-inconsistency between right to free speech and exercise of power by a democratically elected body exercising governmental powers.
Is the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council a democratically elected body exercising governmental powers for the purposes of the law of defamation?
“The election process only involves Aboriginals and is not democratic in the relevant sense because the only people entitled to vote are Aboriginals.”
“…the Council is not governmental in the relevant sense; it only has certain, limited, governmental powers over the Aboriginal portion of the New South