It is obvious that defamation law is broken. A recent spate of ridiculous cases proves it.

Keep in mind that defamation should be an important part of our justice system, protecting citizens, and repairing damaged reputations. But it also places a clog on our freedom of speech, so it is essential we get the balance right.

Mina Greiss confronts media after his friend Jarryd Hayne was sentenced in Newcastle in May 2021.Credit: Dominic Lorrimer

The sad truth is that defamation law is fulfilling none of its purposes, it is curtailing press freedom, and producing grossly unjust results.

As though to prove the point, this week the Federal Court delivered a remarkable judgment. The claim had a sordid background. A young woman was sexually assaulted by Jarryd Hayne, the former rugby league player. Hayne was convicted of two counts of sexual intercourse without consent. Without that woman’s courage, a serious crime would have gone unpunished, and Hayne would still walk free in our community.

But that is only background; the defamation case did not involve the young woman or Hayne. The man who successfully sued Seven for defamation damages was Mina Greiss, a friend of Hayne who was present on the day Hayne was sentenced.

The young woman assaulted was leaving court after giving a victim’s impact statement detailing the effect Hayne’s brutality had on her. The defamation judge found that Greiss was “angry” at the woman and held her in “contempt” because he thought Hayne was innocent and that the young woman “had not told the truth”. Greiss moved toward the woman. He urged the surrounding press to report something adverse about her. (I will not repeat it because that is what Greiss wanted).

The judge found that Greiss was “staring at” the woman and then “spat towards” her. Yes, Greiss spat in the direction of a victim of a brutal sexual assault. So you might ask: Why was Greiss suing? And how on earth did he succeed?

Well, enter the stupidity of our defamation laws. Journalists covered the incident. One reported that Greiss had “stared down” the young woman; another, in a Facebook post, said he spat “at” her. The defamation judge found that this reporting was wrong and, when it came to the spitting, so badly wrong that Greiss was entitled to damages.