TwitDef continues in the Land of Oz and Mitchell appears to have lost his queen and be close to having his king in mate........
From Posetti’s legal rep to Mitchell’s legal rep on 9th December 2010:
“We are instructed to act for Ms Julie Posetti in relation to the matters raised by your client, Mr Chris Mitchell, in your letter dated 29 November 2010 sent to our client on 1 December 2010.
Our client denies Mr Mitchell's assertion that she has defamed him.
The Twitter posts by our client about which your client complains were a fair and accurate summary of matters stated by Ms Wahlquist at the Journalism Education Association Conference on 25 November 2010. Whether or not the matters stated by Ms Wahlquist were right or wrong, they were matters that nevertheless related to a matter of public interest, namely, the conduct of journalism and the editorial policy of a major national newspaper in relation to climate change, being in itself a significant question of public interest, especially in the lead up to a Federal election. Our client in her Twitter posts gave a fair summary of the matters stated by Ms Wahlquist and clearly held out those posts as being reports of statements attributed to Ms Wahlquist and not our client's own views.
Your letter does not attempt to suggest that the Twitter posts were not a fair summary of what Ms Wahlquist said and, indeed, your client acknowledges that his initial conclusion that the posts did not reflect Ms Wahlquist's statements was a conclusion that he was misled into adopting. We note also that, while we appreciate that what is published in The Australian (of which your client serves as editor in chief) may not necessarily always reflect your client's own personal views and is not determinative of the position, it is nevertheless somewhat telling that the "Media diary" article titled “The Posetti tapes” appearing in the online version of The Australian on 30 November 2010 suggested that the "Tweets are a fair summary of what Wahlquist said".
As a fair report of proceedings of public concern (in particular, proceedings of a public meeting held in Australia related to a matter of public interest - see section 29(4)(l) of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) and its equivalents in other states), our client is entitled to the defence available under section 29(1) of the Defamation Act.
For similar reasons, our client is likely also entitled to a defence of common law qualified privilege.”
Copy of entire Posetti 9 December letter here in PDF
No comments:
Post a Comment