A social media user was liable to a local mayor for defamatory posts. The case illustrates how quickly online commentary can cross the line from political criticism into actionable defamation, particularly when serious allegations are presented as fact.
In issue
- Whether publications made against a local city mayor, including social media posts and communications to journalists, were defamatory or constituted legitimate expressions of opinion on matters of public interest.
The background
In October 2019, Mr Patrick Hall (plaintiff) was elected as Mayor of the City of Canning (City). Mr Richard Aldridge (defendant) is a resident of the City.
Between September 2021 to March 2022, the defendant made ten publications by which he accused the plaintiff of misusing his role as Mayor, acting unlawfully, and engaging in corrupt conduct particularly in relation to endorsing candidates for council elections. Some of the publications included:
- on 9 September 2021, the defendant posted on his personal Facebook page and in several local community groups that the plaintiff had endorsed a candidate 'WITHOUT the permission or approval of the Council or the City of Canning', characterising this as 'blatant abuse of this role as spokesman which could effectively disadvantage all other competing candidates'. This post attracted considerable negative commentary from other users within the groups,
- on or about 22 September 2021, the defendant made a publication to a ‘Local Government Reform’ Facebook group. The defendant commented, 'WOW. I thought the Roles of Mayor were clearly outlined in the Local Government Act',
- on 20 October 2021, the defendant made a publication where he questioned 'Is this the new Local Government model where a Mayor and his posse rubber-stamp a pro-WALGA CEO's every decision... The council is now stacked in his favour unless those councillors understand that they do not need to reciprocate his promotion', and
- on 24 March 2022, the defendant, as administrator of the Facebook group ‘Residents of Canning’, reposted a news article 'Mayor forced to apologise' and commented under it, 'Patrick Hall Are you actually proud of misusing your Public office for the private political benefit of your chosen few? Shameless.'
The publications themselves were public, widely disseminated via social media and local press, and attracted critical commentary from community members. Such remarks included allegations of corruption, calls for the plaintiff’s resignation, and aspersions regarding his propriety and integrity.
On 15 June 2022, the plaintiff commenced a defamation proceeding against the defendant in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
The decision at trial
The Court examined each publication made by the defendant, and ultimately concluded that seven of the ten publications were defamatory of the plaintiff.
The Court focused predominantly on whether the publications alleged serious wrongdoing as fact rather than opinion. In other words, the Court looked to whether the publications had conveyed that the plaintiff had done something unlawful, improper and in breach of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) (LGA), rather than simply that he had conveyed controversial political opinions.
The Court was satisfied that the publications conveyed, among others, two overriding imputations:
- the plaintiff, through his political endorsements, acted inconsistently with the LGA, and had breached his legal obligations and duties, including the Code of Conduct applicable to local government councillors,
- the plaintiff acted beyond his lawful powers by using his office to influence local council elections for the ulterior purpose of ‘stacking’ the votes for council of the City in favour of his own personal agenda.
In assessing the imputations, the Court focused closely on how an ordinary reasonable reader (particularly a social media user) would understand the words used in the publications. The Court emphasised the need to distinguish a statement of fact from expressions of opinion, noting the fleeting and impressionistic manner in which social media content is commonly consumed. The Court also considered the audience, the reach and effect of social media posts, specifically given the openness of various Facebook groups, and the ‘grapevine effect’ of social media, recognising the powerful tendency of defamatory matter on such platforms to spread well beyond the initially intended audience and to pose ongoing risks of reputational harm.
The defendant, who represented himself at trial, consistently asserted that his publications were either not defamatory or were the subject of defences such as justification, honest opinion and triviality.
The Court rejected the justification defence, finding that the plaintiff had not breached or acted inconsistently with the Code of Conduct or the LGA in relation to his political endorsements and local council elections. The defence of honest opinion failed in respect of most of the publications, because the impugned statements were not framed as opinion, or, where so formulated, lacked clarity in distinguishing fact from opinion, or were so intermingled that the reader could not reasonably make that distinction. The defence of triviality was also rejected due to the serious nature of the allegations and the widespread nature of the publications.
Considering the extent of the reach and resonance of the publications within the local government community, the Court found that the plaintiff had suffered severe emotional and reputational harm, corroborated by both the plaintiff and his family members. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff, with damages of $250,000 awarded, and an injunction restraining the defendant from further defamatory publication.
Implications for you
The case reinforces that social media posts and publications can lead to legal liability, particularly when statements blur the line between fact and opinion or make unsubstantiated allegations about misconduct. Courts readily take into consideration the wide reach of online platforms, recognising that publications can quickly spread and amplify reputational harm.
The case highlights the need for social media users to exercise caution online, reminding us that harmful online commentary can have serious real-world consequences.
