51²è¹Ý

April 15, 2024

UOW expert on Bruce Lehrmann defamation judgement

Dr Sarah Ailwood says Australian defamation law should be reformed

Dr Sarah Ailwood can provide expert commentary on the Bruce Lehrmann defamation claim against Channel Ten and Lisa Wilkinson.

Dr Ailwood says Australian defamation law should be reformed to create a more level playing field for women, journalists and media publishers speaking out about violence against women.

says Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation claim against Channel Ten and Lisa Wilkinson exposes the legal obstacles to women, journalists and media publishers seeking to bring voices of lived experience into public debate concerning violence against women.

 “The possibility of being sued for defamation is a perennial spoken and unspoken threat that hangs over women seeking to publicise their experiences of violence,” Dr Ailwood said.

“Australian defamation law can and should be reformed to create a more level playing field to reduce the silencing effect on women and give confidence to journalists and media publishers publishing their stories.”

Dr Ailwood says defamation law is weighted in favour of plaintiffs because it assumes that a defamatory statement is false and then requires the defendant to establish that it is true as a defence. When the defamation plaintiff is an alleged perpetrator and the publications relate to an incident of sexual harassment or assault, it is extremely difficult for the victim-survivor or a media publisher to prove truth on the balance of probabilities– even though the standard is lower than in a criminal trial.

Dr Ailwood is from the at the 51²è¹Ý. She researches and publishes in the field of feminist legal theory, with a particular focus on  the #MeToo moment and its legal contexts and consequences, including in defamation and workplace sexual harassment law. She also researches women's legal testimony, listening and law reform in the #MeToo era and is Managing Editor of the Australian Feminist Law Journal.

UOW academics exercise academic freedom by providing expert commentary, opinion and analysis on a range of ongoing social issues and current affairs. This expert commentary reflects the views of those individual academics and does not necessarily reflect the views or policy positions of the 51²è¹Ý.