Defamation and Satire: Hanson v Australian Broadcasting Corporation

The common law's high regard for freedom of speech explains traditional judicial reluctance to impose, through interlocutory injunction, prior restraint upon the publication or broadcast of alleged defamatory material. It might have been expected that this reluctance would be heightened, in the case of commentary concerning politicians and their policies, by High Court development of the law of defamation to ensure conformity with constitutional protection of political speech. However, the outcome of interlocutory proceedings in Hanson v Australian Broadcasting Corporation suggests that commentary which takes the form of satire presents a challenge to the conventional safeguards.It is contended below that the Queensland courts failed satisfactorily to meet this challenge.