Matthew Johns to consider legal avenues

[El Diablo]

EDIT

Also the ABC as I said would have had the story looked over by its law team and cleared for television. Do you think they run programmes without first checking legal advice first. Come on guys no television network would do that.

:lol:

that helped a lot with these

Mountaineer Tim Macartney-Snape wins $450,000 for ABC defamation

Former police officer defamed by Four Corners

thats just doing a quick search

 

[mik01]

They named three people...

And the assumption you claim they cast is drawing a long bow - there is a specific part of the 4 Corners show where they specifically state the opposite to what you say is the assumption they cast:

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2009/s2567972.htm
End of story... no legal argument.

there are a number of 'possible' defences available, but to say 'end of story' is quite bold IMO.

he disputes some of her claims (ie the amount of people in the room, her 'willingness' etc).
the only 'truth' is that he and Firman both did her.

if he was my client, I would be looking very hard at every detail and seeing if I had an angle to work with. which is what they are obviously doing.

 

[El Diablo]

but to say 'end of story' is quite bold IMO.

seeing he is not even a lawyer AFAIK

 

[mik01]

:lol:

that helped a lot with these

Mountaineer Tim Macartney-Snape wins $450,000 for ABC defamation

Former police officer defamed by Four Corners

thats just doing a quick search

quite correct!

the notion that all media 'check legals' before running every story is naive at best.

as we all know, no black and white in law therefore you can't always assume your 'legal advice' is enough to shield you from any action - if indeed you ever sought it in the first place.

 

[mik01]

seeing he is not even a lawyer AFAIK

Bartman has some legal background - we have touched on this before.
if not currently practising in some capacity...

 

[Canard]

he disputes some of her claims (ie the amount of people in the room, her 'willingness' etc).
the only 'truth' is that he and Firman both did her.

I don't think Johns "disputes" her claims, I think he was trying to reinforce his opinion that she consented to the act, which nothing in the 4 Corners report contradicted, but was openly speculated on by some other media commentators after the show was aired.

 

[bluesbreaker]

I'd be sueing that bitch that said Johns 'passed around this girl to his mates like a bucket of hot chips'

That, is clear cut defamation. No two ways about it.

 

[Pete Cash]

:lol:

that helped a lot with these

Mountaineer Tim Macartney-Snape wins $450,000 for ABC defamation

Former police officer defamed by Four Corners

thats just doing a quick search

One of those stories was run in the mid 90s. The ABC famously went to court in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation in 1997 and they were forced to change their methods over that case.

The other one was over this implied bullsh*t which I HATE in our tort system. We should have free speech with much more protection for the press. Like the American system.

The jury also dismissed most of his complaints. I really don't see what grounds Matthew Johns has to go on. Like could he argue that 4c implied he was a rapist. They quite explicitly said he wasn't.

They reported her feelings truthfully (regardless if what she said was true). I struggle to see where he has a case against Four Corners. If anyone can point out where he was defamed by four corners I would be very interested.

Four Corners are allowed to publish things that make people look sh*tty. So long as they can prove they are true and so long as they can prove that its in the publics interest. They also have a fairly light burden of proof.

EDIT

If anyone defamed him its the girl. Still that would be a tricky one to prove as well.

 

[bartman]

but to say 'end of story' is quite bold IMO.

Perhaps. Law isn't a fixed thing and the interpretation can change with each case or ruling. I just think everything was covered very carefully in that program and subsequent statement. He's got no-one to sue, as nothing's been said that is inaccurate.

seeing he is not even a lawyer AFAIK

True, I've got nothing there. But law is the type of thing where you ask five lawyers, you get five different answers...

Bartman has some legal background - we have touched on this before.
if not currently practising in some capacity...

No, not really... been in and around court a few times but not as a lawyer.

Mine's just an opinion, as good or poor as the next one. But to me Johns can't sue a program or the woman for the things they've stated, just because some public opinion has interpreted it a certain way.

 

[ramble_on]

Just doing the rounds on the online media sites.... haven't been able to find one article where they are still calling it "the Mathew Johns group sex scandal". Plenty of articles but now it's a claim or just group sex... I guess there must be something out there making them avoid using that description....