Hindmarsh Island Developers lose in Defamation Case Appeal On 4th November the Supreme Court of South Australia overturned a damages award of over $50,000 to Hindmarsh Island developers Tom and Wendy Chapman. The damages were awarded by the District Court last year after the Chapmans brought a defamation case against anthropologist Neale Draper over an article published by Green Left Weekly. The Full Bench of the Supreme Court found that Neale Draper had not said or authorised the words which the Chapmans had complained about, and ordered the Chapmans to pay Draperıs costs. The Chapmans are currently suing 14 individuals and community groups who have made statements about the proposed bridge to Hindmarsh Island. The Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund (KLDF) has been set up to assist those defendants, and KLDF spokesperson Tom Glynn, said that the decision could be important for all the other defamation cases. He said "The court found that the Chapmans evidence of Draperıs involvement in the publication did not rise above mere conjecture". So Neale Draper has been in the courts for over two years on the basis of what the court has found was mere "conjecture". That the process went so long on that basis is a fundamental problem in the way legal system works. We are especially concerned given that in at least two other "Chaplibel cases" the defendants have also said they were not responsible for what they are being sued for. We think the Chapmans should apologise to Neale Draper for the stress the case has caused and we hope the Chapmans will consider again the bases on which they are suing this host of people. While being pleased with the outcome of the case, Tom Glynn said he was disappointed that the Court had made no finding about the wider issues raised through the defence of qualified privilege - the right to make reasonable comment about issues of public importance. Tom Glynn said, "Many of the defendants will take great heart from this decision, but we had hoped that the court would find that people should have the right to talk about something as important as the planning processes of a major public development." The Chapmansı lawyer, Mr Steve Palyga claimed on ABC radio that the decision was based on legal technicality and argued that the court had still found that some of the statements were defamatory. The Chapmans are also suing a range of media organisations who have reported on the Hindmarsh Island issue, including the ABC, the Financial Review, and The Australian. They have also threatened to sue a number of others, including the KLDF for talking about the cases. ===== ----------------------------------------- The Kumarangk Legal Defence Fund Inc. PO Box 3168, Rundle Mall SA 5000, AUSTRALIA http://www.green.net.au/hindmarsh -- Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alexia.net.au/~www/mhutton/index.html Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
