Julian Assange’s threat to sue Prime Minister Julia Gillard for defamation could be nothing more than a publicity stunt, with experts telling Crikey the WikiLeaks founder may have left it too late to bring legal action.
Assange told activist group GetUp! he could sue Gillard for comments made in 2010, when she labelled the WikiLeaks publication of classified US diplomatic cables as “illegal” and “grossly irresponsible”. He says he has hired lawyers in Sydney and plans to bring the case to court.
Defamation expert Mark Pearson reckons it’s “poor form” by Assange. Pearson, author of Blogging and Tweeting Without Getting Sued, told Crikey: “I think it’s particularly out of order for journalists and free expression advocates to use defamation as a means of chilling debate.”
Pearson and other defamation experts say the case is unlikely to be heard though, because under Australian law a defamation suit must be brought within 12 months of the publication of the defamatory statement.
Assange told GetUp!’s Rohan Wenn he thought he would be able to gain an extension on the 12-month period because of his house arrest in the UK and confinement to the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Cass Matthews, a media law expert at the University of Melbourne, says that will be “difficult” and will depend on Assange’s circumstances within the year following the PM’s statement.
Pearson agrees, saying the issue hasn’t been tested in Australia before. The provision is designed for cases where it may take time to find the source of a rumour, which is not the case with Assange. “The usual criteria is when the comments have only just been brought to the attention of the plaintiff,” according to Pearson.
Professor Andrew Kenyon, director of the Centre of Media and Communications Law, told Crikey repeated publication of the comments could be an avenue for gaining an extension (Assange has said he won’t sue any media outlet that has republished Gillard’s comment).
Wenn conducted the interview with Assange. “Julian made it perfectly clear that his beef is with the Prime Minister and not with any media outlets,” he told Crikey.
If Assange were to gain an extension in order to bring the case, law experts believe proving the statement is defamatory would be simple, but Gillard may have defences available to her.
Matthews believes qualified privilege would be the strongest. “She would need to prove that she has acted reasonably — that would mean that she has researched what she is saying. If that was simply a mistake or it was not based on proper material then she would not have that defence,” she said.
Pearson says it’s unlikely the PM would ever need to argue her case. “People threaten defamation action but very few of those threats actually culminate in action and often the threat is a publicity stunt,” he said.
Assange has high hopes for the case, according to Wenn, with discussions taking place in London for more than 12 months: “He thinks that once the Prime Minister has to acknowledge that WikiLeaks hasn’t done anything illegal, then it’s like ‘why aren’t you helping the guy?'”
Pearson questioned Assange’s motivation for threatening legal action when he faces more pressing legal issues: “I really think it’s a distraction from the main problems he faces. You really think he would be putting all his efforts into the defence of the Swedish allegations and over concerns of his extradition to the US.”
21 thoughts on “PM has little to fear from Assange’s new legal threat”
AR
October 8, 2012 at 7:44 pmJA, rather than the grauniad,NYT etc, is a target precisely because he is an individual, deemed to be swattable.
The banal comments of the PM were legally wrong, ethically evil and as perfect an example as one could imagine about what happens when a satrap asks, when told to jump, not “why?” but “how high, Sir?”.
Poor Bugger, my Country, that such Quislings now occupy high office.
Anna Kae
October 8, 2012 at 8:39 pmAssange is a strategist. Given the amount of time he has had to sit, think, research, plan and consider options, I don’t for even one second think this potential deformation case is his end game. There has to be a way bigger reason for raising this case now.
As for Pearson questioning Assange’s motivation for threatening legal action when he faces more pressing legal issues… well how stupid is Pearson? Assange averages 5 hours sleep a night, spends no time traveling to and from work, doesn’t go to the pub to meet with friends, doesn’t waste hours cleaning, cooking, mowing the lawn or having dinner with the wifie… Assange essentially has 18 hours of time each day to work on his swedish case, his potential US extradition.. not to mention the team that Assange has around him helping him with all of these things.
dione McDonald
October 8, 2012 at 11:55 pmMark Pearson (“defamation expert” ) rather misses the point when he calls Assange’s defamation suit a “publicity stunt”. Rather it sends a very clear message that Gillard’s statements were entirely without foundation, and mounting this case highlights the need for the Australian public to be fully aware that Wikileaks publication of these documents was not only entirely legal but extremely responsible.
Dione
Jimmy
October 9, 2012 at 8:57 amLiz 45 – “Why haven’t other media outlets, editors etc been charged in the US? Like the Guardian, NYT, Washington Post etc. The BBC, ABC, SBS, Murdoch papers etc in Australia?” The exact same reason Assange HASN’T BEEN CHARGED. The only way Assange can or will be charged is if the US have evidence he did more than just publish. As yet that hasn’t happenned.
Dione McDonald – You are saying Mark Pearson misses the point but then reinforce the point that he is right in saying it is a publicity stunt? The reason why Assange is seeking publicity doesn’t change the fact that publicity is the only reason for the supposed defamation case as he can’t win it.
Jimmy
October 9, 2012 at 8:57 am.
Ian
October 9, 2012 at 1:07 pmJimmy,
The US does not balk at torture, detention without trial (indefinitely if need be), extrajudicial assassinations or setting up show trials. In fact they can, and do, what they damn well like. Look at their war against whistle blowers. Look at their treatment of Bradley Manning.
This is not a game and it’s time Australia broke away from the grasp of the US and became an independent state like some of the South American countries have done and others are trying to do.
Wake up Australians before it’s too late!
Jimmy
October 9, 2012 at 1:50 pmIan – Firstly Manning is subject to the military justice system, Assange is not, second if they wanted to assassinate Assange why would they bother getting him to Sweden? Third the federal court recently ruled against detention without trial and fourth while some “enemy combatants” have been subject to “renditions” how would they do that to someone of Assanges profile and again why bother getting him to Sweden to do it?
mary singh
October 10, 2012 at 8:31 amJulian Assange, lives in Computer Wonderland deep inside the Equadorian Embassy Basement.I for one can only hope ,he permanently stays there never to be heard of again.
Ian
October 10, 2012 at 12:57 pmNo point in arguing this with you Jimmy. I am simply pointing out what the US is capable of and what it actually does do and will continue to do. The federal court’s recent ruling was immediately challenged by the administration and has been overridden – you should know that?
Bradley Manning has been awaiting trial for over 800 days and the process is more like a kangaroo court (a prolonged one)than an even-handed attempt at dispensing justice.
Jimmy
October 10, 2012 at 1:05 pm“The federal court’s recent ruling was immediately challenged by the administration and has been overridden – you should know that?” By what? The last I saw was the govt challenged and the court reaffirmed it’s ruling.
“Bradley Manning has been awaiting trial for over 800 days and the process is more like a kangaroo court (a prolonged one)than an even-handed attempt at dispensing justice.” As I said Manning is faciing the military justice system, Assange is not.
“simply pointing out what the US is capable of and what it actually does do and will continue to do.” whether true or not does not automatically mean that Assange is being persecuted or that Asutralia is in “the grasp of the US” and isn’t an ” independent state like some of the South American countries”