The outcome of the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation case against media outlets and journalists has "cemented the importance of public interest journalism in Australia", but will it actually encourage news outlets faced with the risk of potential legal costs in the millions of dollars? We share some thoughts on the implications of this significant court case.
The Public Interest Journalism Institute (PIJI) says that the long-running case, which was decided with Justice Anthony Besanko's ruling on 1 June, is a defining case which reveals "just how vital journalistic investigation is".
"It proves that public interest journalism still serves a purpose, holding the powerful and wealthy to account for their actions."
The PIJI released a summary of media coverage of the outcome of the case, including the ABC's coverage - a video of journalist Nick McKenzie speaking on 7.30 about the judgement, an audio piece discussing the legal fees associated with the case, a video exploration of problems with Australia's defamation laws and a timeline for catching up on the case.
Legal academic Daniel Joyce was teaching a media law class when the judgement was handed down in what he describes as potentially the "most consequential media law case of recent times".
"This important case reveals much about the operation of media law and its failure to protect media freedom. It highlights the reliance we place upon exemplary public interest journalism to ensure that our democracy functions and that our institutions and the powerful are held to account. Our media laws so often act to constrain rather than facilitate investigative journalism."
Joyce said the case again raised the absence of express protection for freedom of speech in Australia.
"Instead of the rights-based protections found at the international level, in regional frameworks and in other comparable domestic jurisdictions, we have an implied freedom of political communication – a largely negative common law conception of freedom of speech and the principle of legality to aid interpretation."
Legendary former ABC investigative journalist, Chris Masters, one of the journalists named in the action, expressed his concerns that the costs involved in investigating and then potentially defending a defamation action are already having a significant deterrent effect, along with the time that can lapse before a case is resolved.
"The case took five years to determine and some $30 million was spent and I’m not sure how much of that Nine will ever recover," he told the ABC.
Masters said while public interest journalism remains vital, he doesn’t blame other journalists "for not wanting to do this type of work because it can really end up being death by a thousand courts".
Sophie Arnold
Editor of ABC Friends email newsletter