When the Judiciary is defamed: Restraint Policy under Challenge

Gould, K

When the Judiciary is defamed: Restraint Policy under Challenge

Gould, K

Permalink

Publisher:: Thomson Law Book Co
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Gould Kim 2006, 'When the Judiciary is defamed: Restraint Policy under Challenge', Thomson Law Book Co., vol. 80, no. 9, pp. 602-622.
Issue Date:: 2006

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	2006005199.pdf		1.64 MB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Gould, K	en_US
dc.date.accessioned	2009-08-20T13:01:35Z
dc.date.available	2009-08-20T13:01:35Z
dc.date.issued	2006	en_US
dc.identifier	2006005199	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Gould Kim 2006, 'When the Judiciary is defamed: Restraint Policy under Challenge', Thomson Law Book Co., vol. 80, no. 9, pp. 602-622.	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0004-9611	en_US
dc.identifier.other	C1	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/974
dc.description.abstract	There is a "policy" that judicial officers should not sue for defamation, save in exceptional circumstances. But this is coming under challenge on a number of fronts. Concerns about maintaining public confidence in the judiciary if this policy is relaxed or even abandoned are now largely illusory in the face of a robust judiciary as part of a modern democracy. More worrying is the potential chilling effect on criticism of the judiciary; the real issue is whether the defamation defences are up to the task of adequately protecting this form of speech - and it appears that there may be reason for concern. These issues are considered against the background of the robust views about criticism of the judiciary expressed by Justice Sackville, Chair of the Judicial Conference of Australia and a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia, in his Lucinda Lecture and other fora in 2005. The inquiry also provides insight into other wider issues including the interrelationship between the judicial restraint policy and scandalising contempt.	en_US
dc.publisher	Thomson Law Book Co	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	The Australian Law Journal	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	0	en_US
dc.title	When the Judiciary is defamed: Restraint Policy under Challenge	en_US
dc.type	Journal article
utslib.citation.volume	80	en_US
utslib.citation.number	9	en_US
utslib.location	Sydney, Australia	en_US
utslib.citation.startpage	602	en_US
utslib.citation.endpage	622	en_US
utslib.identifier.org	Law	en_US
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access

Abstract:

There is a "policy" that judicial officers should not sue for defamation, save in exceptional circumstances. But this is coming under challenge on a number of fronts. Concerns about maintaining public confidence in the judiciary if this policy is relaxed or even abandoned are now largely illusory in the face of a robust judiciary as part of a modern democracy. More worrying is the potential chilling effect on criticism of the judiciary; the real issue is whether the defamation defences are up to the task of adequately protecting this form of speech - and it appears that there may be reason for concern. These issues are considered against the background of the robust views about criticism of the judiciary expressed by Justice Sackville, Chair of the Judicial Conference of Australia and a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia, in his Lucinda Lecture and other fora in 2005. The inquiry also provides insight into other wider issues including the interrelationship between the judicial restraint policy and scandalising contempt.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/974