Home > Resistance > The FHA Blog

The FHA Blog

A Post from 25 June 2007

Media watchdog recommended ABC apology

The trial in biologist Jeremy Griffith and mountaineer Tim Macartney-Snape’s defamation action over a 1995 ABC-TV Four Corners program resumed today in the Supreme Court following a 10-week adjournment.

In a day marked by protracted legal argument, the plaintiffs’ counsel, Kieran Smark, picked up where he left off on 13 April 2007, tendering audio-visual material, correspondence and other documents as part of his clients’ evidence-in-chief.

The plaintiffs’ tender bundle included a letter from Mr Griffith sent on 27 April 1995, just two days after the defamatory broadcast first aired, to the ABC’s then managing director, Brian Johns, claiming the national broadcaster had breached its Code of Practice.

Following objections from the defendants, Justice David Kirby allowed Mr Griffith’s letter to be admitted, limited to relevant evidence of complaint in respect of four subject matters, being “the selection of some parents [to appear in the program] but not others; some experts but not others, the reference to Mr Griffith being a Jesus Christ figure which he did not claim to be and Mr Macartney-Snape abusing the hospitality of schools who invited him to speak.”

Also tendered was a letter in response from Mr Johns on 29 May 1995, which dismissed Mr Griffith’s concerns and preceded the filing of a formal complaint with the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) and a subsequent ruling from the media regulator in 1998.

Mr Smark then sought to admit correspondence between the public bodies, including a letter dated 8 July 1998 from the ABA’s then deputy chairman, Gareth Grainger, to the ABC that stated:

“The ABA’s investigation resulted in a number of adverse findings against the ABC concerning accuracy and balance within the ‘Four Corners’ program. In light of these findings the ABA is of the view that out of fairness to the complainant it would be appropriate for the ABC to broadcast some form of apology”.

Also put forward were letters exchanged later in July 1998 showing the ABC protesting the investigative process that led to the ABA ruling, and the media watchdog maintaining its position.

The new counsel for the defendants, John Sheahan SC, objected to the purpose for which the plaintiffs sought to tender the ABA correspondence:

“The question whether someone else called upon [the ABC] to apologise and [it] refused raises what is in truth a wholly collateral issue”.

After hearing submissions, Justice Kirby admitted the ABA correspondence into evidence subject to limitation, saying:

“In some respects it may be arguable that, flawed or not, this was an opportunity from a relevant body of jurisdiction for the ABC, in a timely way, to search its soul as to whether it had been guilty of the things that were said against it”.

After the luncheon adjournment, Mr Macartney-Snape returned to the witness box to give evidence about events relating to the scientific support for Mr Griffith’s work.

The trial continues tomorrow in the NSW Supreme Court.

 

Home > Resistance > The FHA Blog