High Court of Australia – Courts should be reluctant to extend the immunity given to witnesses: ‘the general rule is that the extension of absolute privilege is viewed with the most jealous suspicion, and resisted, unless its necessity is demonstrated’
Defamation – Absolute privilege – Absolute privilege only attaches out of necessity – Judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings – Complaint procedures and disciplinary proceedings – Letter to Attorney-General questioning special magistrate’s fitness to hold office – Letter not a step in disciplinary proceedings – Letter invoked investigative function equating with prosecuting authority’s function – Not necessary that statements to prosecuting authorities be absolutely privileged – Complaints to prosecuting authorities enjoy qualified privilege.
Citations:
(1997) 71 ALJR 903, (1997) 191 CLR 204, (1997) 145 ALR 682, (1997) 12 Leg Rep 21, [1997] Aust Torts Reports 81-436
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Australia
Cited by:
Cited – General Medical Council v Professor Sir Roy Meadow, Attorney General CA 26-Oct-2006
The GMC appealed against the dismissal of its proceedings for professional misconduct against the respondent doctor, whose expert evidence to a criminal court was the subject of complaint. The doctor said that the evidence given by him was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Defamation
Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.245753
