Andrew Bolt redux

The vast wealth of information out there in cyberspace means that few have a place to hide past mistakes these days.

In 2000 journalist Andrew Bolt wrote one of his trademark snarky articles We pay our magistrates good money to UPHOLD the laws.

Here is his shining moment in the full glare of a legal judgment which followed in Herald & Weekly Times Ltd & Bolt v Popovic VSCA 161 [2003]:

224. Mr Bolt then wrote and published -
     

     "How outrageous to so bully a prosecutor for simply arguing the law must be upheld against demonstrators who destroy the property of others."

225. Mr Bolt only published a portion of the exchange between Ms Popovic and the prosecutor, and it is arguable that his observation about the bullying of the prosecutor was supported by what he published. But when the whole exchange is revealed, the context shows beyond doubt in my opinion, that there is no basis for the observation made by Mr Bolt. He has distorted what in fact occurred, with the result that he was able to make a critical comment. If the whole transcript had been published, it would have been clear to the reasonable reader that there was no basis whatsoever for the comment.

226. By distorting the facts, Mr Bolt has conveyed to the reader a false impression. As a result of the false impression, Mr Bolt was able to make a critical comment concerning Ms Popovic which arguably was supported by the distorted facts. But the true position was that the exchange between Ms Popovic and the prosecutor did not justify or even arguably support the critical comment made.

227. According to the evidence, Mr Bolt received a faxed copy of a report of what had occurred at the hearing on 30 November, and attached to it was a version typed by the police of the discussion between Ms Popovic and the prosecutor which had been recorded. The exhibit now before the court is faded and difficult to read. However, Mr Bolt read the report and the transcript and highlighted parts of the latter document. According to Mr Bolt, he took the view that there had been an error in the transcript where it read - "MAGISTRATE: I am warning you, now, I don't wish to enter an argument with you." Without seeking clarification and without asking to hear the recording, Mr Bolt formed the view that there should have been a full stop after the word "now". He said he was correcting an error and described it as an "ungrammatical error". He went on to say that he thought the punctuation mark was missing. It was then put to him that it was an example of "selective quoting changing the meaning of what was said, do you agree?" and he replied, "Certainly not". He was also asked the question, "And do you agree now that you changed the meaning of what was said?" to which he replied, "Absolutely not". He was then asked this question - "So without reference back to Mr Mohammad or anyone in the prosecution section and certainly no reference to the magistrate who said it or to the official court reporting people you entered a full stop after the word `Now'?" Mr Bolt replied - "Yes, I think I was right to do. I would have liked to have had the whole sense because I think it would have been even more damning to include it. I did not." His denials cannot stand in light of the full transcript of the exchange. No reasonable jury could have accepted his oral evidence.

228. In my opinion no jury could, in light of the distortion of the facts, come to the conclusion that the making of the publication was reasonable in the circumstances. The facts were not in dispute. It is noted that two of the three imputations relied upon by Ms Popovic were based upon the comment made by Mr Bolt concerning bullying a prosecutor for simply arguing the law. Mr Bolt's conduct in the circumstances was at worst dishonest and misleading and at best, grossly careless. It reflects upon him as a journalist. [My highlighting]