Harman Patil (Editor)

Theophanous v Herald and Weekly Times Ltd

Updated on
Edit
Like
Comment
Share on FacebookTweet on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Reddit
Date decided
  
October 12, 1994

Ruling court
  
High Court of Australia

Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd

Citation(s)
  
[1994] HCA 46, (1994) 182 CLR 104

Judges sitting
  
Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh JJ

Judge sittings
  
Gerard Brennan, William Deane, Daryl Dawson, John Toohey, Mary Gaudron

Similar
  
Commonwealth v Tasmania, Monis v The Queen, Dietrich v The Queen, New York Times Co v Sullivan, Mabo v Queensland (No 2)

Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd is a landmark Australian judgment of the High Court. The matter related to implied freedom of political communication that the High Court has inferred, rests in the Australian constitution.

Contents

Background

Andrew Theophanous had been an Australian Labor Party member of the Australian House of Representatives since 1980. In 1992, he was the chairperson of the Joint Parliamentary Standing Committee on Migration. The Herald and Weekly Times published an article by Bruce Ruxton, "Give Theophanous the shove", which stated that Theophanous "appears to want a bias shown towards Greeks as migrants". Theophanous sued the Herald & Weekly Times and Ruxton for defamation.

Decision

The judgment held that there was an implied constitutional freedom to publish material discussing government and political matters as well as the way that members of the Parliament of Australia conducted their duties and their suitability for office.

Significance

Just three years later, with a change in the composition of the High Court, the court unanimously reversed the opinion in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation. It held that no direct right to free speech could form a defence to defamation. Still, the case remains important in the development of the implied freedom.

References

Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd Wikipedia


Similar Topics