Uniform Defamation Laws in Australia: Moving towards a More ‘Reasonable’ Privilege?

2011 ◽  
Vol 138 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-20
Author(s):  
Rhonda Breit

A new uniform defamation regime now operates in Australia. This article canvasses the Uniform Defamation Laws (UDLs), focusing on the defence of qualified privilege and its capacity to protect mass media publications in the public interest. Drawing on case law and analysis of the key approaches to statutory privilege, the article evaluates the current approach to statutory qualified privilege. Taking account of observations in O'Hara v Sims (2008, 2009) about the operation of qualified privilege, it questions whether the UDL statutory qualified privilege will ultimately censor publications in the public interest and restrict the application of the qualified privilege defence.

Pravni zapisi ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 504-531
Author(s):  
Jelena Jerinić

Serbian Law on General Administrative Procedure (LGAP) opened a possibility for broadening the standing in administrative procedures and administrative disputes, by inclusion of subjects representing collective interests and interest of the wider public - primarily, citizen associations and similar organizations. However, by failing to regulate a series of concrete issues, the Law places the administration and the Administrative Court before a challenge, demanding from them an extensive interpretation of not only LGAP's provisions, but other legislation already recognizing such organizations as AIDS in realization of the public interest. The author analyzes relevant legislation, as well as available administrative and court caselaw in search of these answers. The lack of explicit legal provisions could be balanced by a creative approach in practice, especially by the Administrative Court. Having in mind comparative solutions, the question arises whether it is necessary to regulate this category of potential parties separately or to link it more explicitly to the already existing notion of an interested party. Instead, completely new notions have been introduced - collective interests and the wider interests of the public - which are not or not consistently defined in Serbian law. The current, not so voluminous case law, shows that the administrative bodies need a more direct indication of the rules, i.e. a more explicit definitions of these terms. However, despite the restrictive legal framework, administrative bodies should be open to understanding the specific circumstances, i.e. the motivation that an organization has when it seeks standing. In the normative sphere, one of the solutions could be to envisage the analogous application of LGAP's provisions on the interested party. Other solutions could be sought in explicitly mentioning them in the provisions on right to appeal. The current formulations of LGAP do not provide sufficient guidance to the administration and an extensive interpretation would be a great challenge for them. An active approach of the Administrative Court could show the way for the administration toward and effective application of these provisions of LGAP.


2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marija Karanikić Mirić ◽  
Tatjana Jevremović Petrović

The subject of this paper is the special legal regime for administrative contracts under the recently enacted Serbian Law on General Administrative Procedure of 2016. We offer a comprehensive analysis of the new statutory rules, and examine their relationship to the general rules and principles of Serbian contract law. In addition, we identify the main shortcomings of the new regime, especially in the context of the lack of any statutory, scholarly and judicial typology of administrative contracts in Serbia. Furthermore, we highlight the lack of references to the notions of public interest, public purpose or public needs in the statutory definition of administrative contracts. This is cause for concern, since only the need to protect the public interest could justify the new statutory provisions, which significantly improve the contractual position of a public body as a contracting party in relation to the position of a private entity as the other party in administrative contracts. There is as yet no case law pertaining to administrative contracts in Serbia. This is why we turn to practical experience in the Croatian legal system, which is sufficiently similar and historically connected to Serbia via a shared Yugoslav heritage. We also consider German and French legal models, since they traditionally serve as comparative points of reference for Serbian legal scholars, judges and law makers.


2019 ◽  
pp. 939
Author(s):  
M Moore

Under Winter v. NRDC, federal courts considering a preliminary injunction motion look to four factors, including the public interest impact of the injunction. But courts do not agree on what the public interest is and how much it should matter. This Note describes the confusion over the public interest factor and characterizes the post-Winter circuit split as a result of this confusion. By analyzing the case law surrounding the public interest factor, this Note identifies three aspects of a case that consistently implicate the direction and magnitude of this factor: the identity of the parties, the underlying cause of action, and the scope of injunctive relief. By centering the public interest factor on these three aspects, courts and litigants will achieve a unified conception of the public interest factor.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 648-651
Author(s):  
Svitlana Bevz ◽  

The article is devoted to the problem of ensuring balance in the realization of two fundamental human rights and freedoms in a democratic society – the right to freedom of speech and privacy. It has been concluded that the rights to freedom of speech and privacy are recognized as fundamental human rights that do not conflict with each other but are intangible, inherent in every person. The right to freedom of journalism is a continuation of the right to freedom of speech and information and consists in the collection, storage, and dissemination of socially important information through the mass media. The usage of the rights in question, including in the mass media actions, may not be grounds for restricting or violating the right of everyone to privacy, the confidentiality of correspondence, correspondence, telephone conversations, and entails criminal liability in cases provided by law. In the public interest, the law provides grounds for exempting a journalist from criminal liability for disclosing confidential information, in particular in the case of disclosure of information of public interest or has already been published in other media, or concerns officials of public authorities.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 333-360
Author(s):  
Jonathan Collinson

Abstract This article rationalises the case law of the European Court of Human Rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in deportation cases involving children. The Court engages in a balancing exercise between the right to family life of the deportee’s family on the one side, and the public interest in deportation on the other. This article expands on existing case law analysis by suggesting that in deportation cases, the Court considers Article 8 as a form of commonly held right, rather than an individual right held by one member of the family. Furthermore, the balance is argued to be constructed as a relationship between two factors on both sides, rather than of a sole factor on either side as being determinative. This article concludes that the best interests of the child (one of the ‘Üner criteria’) is not adequately reflected in the Court’s deportation decision-making practice.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Jibril ◽  
Arvel Mulia Pratama ◽  
Jinan Raidangi

Abstract: Land Acquisition for Development in the Public Interest in Indonesia still often causes polemic, as is still often found in various mass media. The problem in the implementation of land aquisition is because the Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 2 of 2012 concerning Land Aquisition for Development in the Public Interest, and the Presidential Regulation that follows it, has not rigidly stipulated the basis for determining the compensation value used to determine the compensation value. This research was conducted by making a comparison between ius constitutum and in concreto events in the field. Primary data in this study were obtained byinterviewing several sources in August 2017, which can be accounted for, while the secondary data were obtained byliterature studies. Based on the research, it is known that there is injustice in determining the value of compensation to the entitled parties. Seeing this, the author tried to describe the existing problems and provide solutions tailored to the situation and conditions in land aquisition in Indonesia. This was intended to actualize the value of social justice in the aquisition of land for development in the public interest in Indonesia.Intisari: Pengadaan Tanah bagi Pembangunan untuk Kepentingan Umum di Indonesia masih sering menimbulkan polemik, sebagaimana yang masih kerap ditemui dalam berbagai media massa. Permasalahan dalam pelaksanaan pengadaan tanah disebabkan karena Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 2 Tahun 2012 tentang Pengadaan Tanah Bagi Pembangunan Untuk Kepentingan Umum, serta Peraturan Presiden yang mengikutinya belum mengatur secara rigid tentang dasar penetapan nilai ganti kerugian yang digunakan untuk menetapkan nilai ganti kerugian. Kajian ini dilakukan dengan melakukan komparisi antara ius constitutum dengan peristiwa in concreto yang ada di lapangan. Data primer dalam kajian ini diperoleh dari hasil wawancara dari beberapa narasumber pada Agustus 2017 yang dapat dipertanggungjawabkan dan data sekunder dalam kajian ini diperoleh dari studi kepustakaan. Berdasarkan penelitian diketahui bahwa terdapat ketidakadilan dalam penetapan nilai ganti kerugian terhadap pihak-pihak yang berhak. Melihat hal tersebut penulis mencoba menguraikan permasalahan yang ada dan memberikan solusi yang disesuaikan dengan situasi dan kondisi dalam pengadaan tanah di Indonesia. Hal ini dimaksudkan untuk mengaktualisasikan nilai keadilan sosial dalam pengadaan tanah bagi pembangunan untuk kepentingan umum di Indonesia 


Author(s):  
Subir Sinha

COVID-19 is the cause of the greatest pandemic of the century that affects almost every nation of our globe. In India, mass media has played a significant role in this pandemic situation. The media coverage revealed fearlessly the condition of COVID-19 and provides a pictorial view of the situation in front of the readers and viewers. The main objectives of these fearless journalistic works were to provide the public valuable authentic information, create awareness among the public, eliminate fake propaganda and fake news, highlight the problem face by the ordinary public, and to provide the government a medium to speak with the public for the public interest. Mass media served as a vital weapon to fight against COVID-19. The valuable information and instructions provided by mass media created awareness among the public and which played a major role to deescalate the graphical representation of active COVID-19 cases. The outbreak of COVID-19 and the dogmatic approaches of the mass media in the pandemic situation have recalled the concept of media as the third pillar of democracy.


2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 329-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Lee

AbstractThe relevance of public interests in private law is at the heart of some central divides in tort scholarship. This paper argues that public interests pervade private nuisance cases. The uncertain and contested nature of public interests, and the absence in both the case law and the scholarly literature of an abstract definition of what is to count as a public interest, do not prevent these matters from playing a significant role in tort. In these circumstances, it is important to reflect on how we might set about articulating the public interest. This paper argues that administrative decisions that are intended to serve the public interest can in some cases provide a defensible vision of public interest for the purposes of private law. An examination of the process by which regulatory decisions were reached can provide indicators to assist in identifying and evaluating the strength of claimed public interests.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (10) ◽  
pp. 77
Author(s):  
Ilga Krampuža

The report describes the current problem - the disproportionately large increase in the number of normative acts. Such a situation frightens the society, creates distrust to the state administration and causes errors in adoption of normative acts, which shall be corrected. Therefore, the excessive increase in the number of normative acts is negative. Before adopting the normative acts, it is proposed to consider all possibilities for solving a specific problem. The importance of the principle of democracy in reducing the increase of normative acts has been raised. The aim of the report is to provide a general insight into the tasks of normative acts; to update general guidelines on the basis of the principle of democracy, which confirms that the adoption of normative acts should be evaluated in conjunction with the consideration of other criteria for solving a specific problem.The tasks of the research are the following: to update the connection of the adoption of normative acts with the essence of the principle of democracy; to analyse the growth rates of normative acts; to study the reasons for the increase in the number of normative acts; to put forward the principle of democracy as a limiter for the growth of normative acts. In the research, the grammatical method is used to present description of the normative acts adoption process, as well as to provide review of the reasons for the increase in the number of normative acts. The systemic method is used to assess the possibilities of interpreting the principle of democracy, based on the case law of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia and the legal doctrine. The analytical method is used to describe the disproportionately rapid increase of normative acts. The analytical method is applied to evaluate the possibilities of using the principle of democracy to reduce the number of normative acts. Using the teleological method, an increase in the number of normative acts is considered in the context of the essence of the principle of democracy.The results of the research are reflected in the main conclusions: the increase in the number of normative acts in the recent years has to be regarded as unreasonable and contrary to the public interest; the principle of democracy requires that solution to the problem, firstly, shall be sought for in the legal system; based on the principle of democracy, the usefulness, purpose and implementation of the public interest in adoption of new normative acts should be considered. 


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document