GRIFFITH & ORS v JOHN FAIRFAX PUBLICATIONS PTY LTD & ORS

For the reasons given in relation to the first matter complained of I am not persuaded that the identified portion of CultAware by itself, or as part of the whole body of that matter, is capable of giving rise to this imputation. As intimated earlier Mr Griffith has very strong views and may well be intolerant in defence of them. On the other hand, his followers are healthy, privileged, highly intelligent, well educated and highly nurtured. It is hard to see any room for the involvement in that relationship of sanctions, fear and terror that one would associate with tyranny whether in the political context or, indeed, even perhaps in the domestic context. 80 Accordingly, I hold that imputation 12(b) is incapable of being carried by the second matter complained of and I enter a verdict for all defendants against the first plaintiff in respect of that cause of action. 81 Imputation 12(c ): "Jeremy Griffith is the leader of an organisation which places unreasonable demands on the members of the FHA such that their families are torn apart" (lines 1, 4, 11-12, 31, 45, 55-57, 61-62, 90-93, 109-111, 116-117, 132-134, 220-221, 230-231, 443, 448-449, 453-454, 436-437, 487-488, 515-516, 629-631). 82 The first and second defendants did not take any objection to equivalent imputations in SMH . The third defendant submitted that the ordinary reasonable reader could expect, in the normal course, that some families would be unhappy that their children had joined a close-knit organisation of any kind (whether it be the army, a sports club, a religious group, etc). That, however, does not suggest that those children joined that organisation unwillingly or that the demands made upon them are unreasonable. It is submitted that there is no suggestion in CultAware that the demands of the Foundation are unreasonable. Further, the ordinary reasonable reader would judge the various plaintiffs on the basis of the SMH extract without reference to other material in the newsletter. In other words, the ordinary reasonable reader is sophisticated enough to judge the plaintiffs on the basis of what was specifically reported about them. Further, if a reader did judge the plaintiffs on the basis of the material outside the SMH extract (which is not submitted to be an available approach), that reader could see the newsletter containing specific caveats about not treating the various groups mentioned in an undifferentiated way (lines 44-46 and 218-221). I have reflected upon these submissions; they are certainly appropriate for a jury. However, on a capacity argument, there are two particular components of the SMH extract that persuade me that the imputation can go to the jury and those are first, lines 633-636 relating to the first plaintiff's "towering self-certainty" and so-on, and the preceding three lines in relation to families being "torn apart". Accordingly, imputation 12(c) I find to be capable of being carried by CultAware and capable of being defamatory. 83 Imputation 12(d): "Jeremy Griffith is the leader of a destructive cult which poses a threat to the community" (the whole of the second matter complained of). 84 In relation to this imputation an objection is taken as to form on the basis that the imputation is vague and embarrassing because it does not specify the form of "destruction" or the type of "threat to the community" . It is suggested that "destructiveness" and, presumably, "threat" is cognate with "corrupt" as referred to and dealt with by the Chief Justice especially in Drummoyne Municipal Council v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1990) 21 NSWLR 135. 85 It is to be noted in relation to this matter that the first plaintiff simply relies on the whole of the matter complained of. Whether that is so or whether the first plaintiff can be understood as divining paths to the imputation from other parts of the matter, it seems to me that the argument as to form is hair-splitting to say the least. The simplest answer is that that imputation means what it says, and nothing in the second matter complained of as a whole, and certainly the SMH extract, is capable of carrying it. 86 Accordingly I hold that imputation 12(d) is incapable of being carried by the second matter complained of and there shall be a verdict for the defendants against the first plaintiff in respect of that cause of action. 87 Imputation 12(e): "Jeremy Griffith uses mind control techniques on unwitting victims" (The whole of the matter complained of, in particular lines 11-12, 56-57, 97-98, 139, 143-151, 624-627, 651-652).