In response, an editorial by ABC’s Craig McMurtrie claimed the national broadcaster had stuck to its obligation to publish valid and true facts: “The ABC isn’t a police force or court. Its job is to be unflinching in providing Australians with independent news and information. Its job is to pursue evidence-based reporting and the truth.”

With Cardinal Pell’s supporters now turning their attention to whether media – which does include the ABC, but many others – defamed him at any point, Lawyers Weekly talked to Marque Lawyers managing partner Michael Bradley on media defamation law.

“With defamation, the question is always ‘what did you say’ or ‘what did you publish’, and motivation doesn’t form part of that equation,” Mr Bradley said when questioned about an opportunity and potential for bias in any articles concerning Cardinal Pell.

“It’s a question of what statements were made and what they conveyed to the audience – if a broadcaster or publisher was motivated by bias which then translated into its language or editorial choices made, then they might have exposed themselves to a defamation suit because it may [impact their] ability to run the defences that are available to them.”

In terms of this case, does Cardinal Pell stand a chance of successfully arguing the ABC or other media defamed him? According to Mr Bradley, if he does, he will be in a difficult position because “he’d have to show that what was published wasn’t true”.

First, Mr Bradley said that if the media reported the facts of the case – that at some point he was accused of certain actions and was convicted of those actions, he then lost appeal and then won the second appeal – then there is no scope for him to pursue defamation.

However, “if Pell can find something that someone broadcasted or published which went beyond that and implied that he was guilty of something he wasn’t, he might have a case”.

VIEW ALL

“Although, it would have to be something more than the media reporting on him as a guilty person after he was convicted, because at that time it was a fact. Although the conviction was later quashed, it doesn’t change the history of it,” Mr Bradley said. “The media was inclined to report on him as a convicted felon until the point that he wasn’t anymore.”

Mr Bradley said the other point is that if he does choose to sue someone, then he opens the opportunity for whoever he sues to prove the truth of the underlying allegations. This ultimately means media can prove that the facts they reported at the time were true in the eyes of the law – he was, once upon a time, a convicted felon. This is his legal risk.