Bender_
X
No they didn't.
Banter RDT CVXXXI - BigTank
- Thread starter Mop
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
No they didn't.
Oh all right, you got me, I don't play Waste Races. I just umpire them.
Bug life....
Yawned and left!
Yawned and left!
Mixing stripes and spots? Those bugs have zero fashion sense.
RookiePick
Brownlow Medallist
- Aug 13, 2014
- 28,090
- 50,740
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Doesn't matter. Had snu-snu
The definition of 'pyrrhic victory' needs to be updated with a picture of Ben Roberts-Smith's lawyers after the judge found that all the claimed imputations were established.
Got to make room for the Essendon merch
Miguel Sanchez
(Unique injury) TBC
I think it was just a loss.
- Apr 30, 2015
- 14,487
- 26,186
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Yeah, I'm not seeing any sort of victory for BRS, pyrrhic or otherwise.
Miguel Sanchez
(Unique injury) TBC
Maybe it’s a Pyrrhic victory for the lawyers because they still get paid.
It's a pyrrhic victory because by winning that argument they wound up giving the judge the opportunity to find that the imputations were also true. If they'd lost then the judge would not have considered whether BRS was a disgrace, but they won and now it's a matter of legal record that he is one.
- Apr 30, 2015
- 14,487
- 26,186
- AFL Club
- West Coast
I'm confused. Which argument did they win?
- Apr 30, 2015
- 14,487
- 26,186
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Wasn't he suing various media for defamation? And the Judge dismissed the case on the basis that what was said was most likely true?
That's my very loose understanding.
That's my very loose understanding.
Miguel Sanchez
(Unique injury) TBC
Did the defendant media companies admit that they made the imputations?
I think if you sue someone for defamation, they admit they made the statement but argue it was true, and the judge finds it was true, you’ve well and truly lost the case. Not even Christian Porter could spin that as a win.
Forward Press
Hall of Famer
It's a correct understanding.
The judge is not required to find beyond reasonable doubt whether BRS murdered or killed those Afghans - just that it was substantially true. It's a far lower threshold which was satisfied by those media organisations producing evidence for their claims about BRS in the form of eyewitness testimony and other documents.
All BRS had to do was reply with a standard no comment on anything and let the stories die as mere gossip from tabloids, but his pride got in the way.
Defamation has three basic stages:
1. Was the imputation made? I.e. That he's a murderer
2. Is it defamatory? Obvs, being thought of as a murderer typically considered a bit of a bad thing
3. Defences, in this case they went with truth. The law doesn't protect a false reputation.
Plaintiff (BRS) established the first two points, 9 established that everything they said was true. Net result, win for the defence.
However, if the plaintiff had failed to prove that the imputation he was a murderer was made, his case would have been lost before steps 2 and 3. By winning the first battles (steps 1 and 2), the defence had a chance to, well, defend. The judge agreed with them that everything they said was true. It would have been better for BRS to lose on Step 1 because then the judge would not have decided whether he was a murderer or not. The finding would have been that 9 didn't imply that he was. Net damage to reputation: significantly less.
They admitted some but not all. Judge found all were made.
Miguel Sanchez
(Unique injury) TBC
But also that all were true?
Yes, truth pleaded in the alternative.
Miguel Sanchez
(Unique injury) TBC
Sorry, I meant did the judge find they were all true?
Mr Eagle
Bird-brain
Law is fun.
- Mar 20, 2007
- 30,013
- 28,273
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Legal thread for all those banned from BigLegal
Oh, yes.
The legal profession lost a brilliant mind the day I decided not to become a lawyer.
Because I also hit one of the top lawyers in the state with my car that day.
Because I also hit one of the top lawyers in the state with my car that day.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
