Tweet
In handing down the decision Justice Murray Kellam said the media's case for publishing the names had been based on three key points.
These were that firstly the players' names were no longer confidential and were already in the public domain, that the players had been involved in criminal conduct by taking illicit drugs and therefore had no right to confidentiality and thirdly that public interest required that the names of the players be revealed.
However Justice Kellam dismissed all three points in upholding the AFL and the AFLPA's right to keep the players' names suppressed.
"Firstly there is no evidence that the names of the players have gone to the public at large through newspapers or television or any mass media outlet," he said, adding the only evidence that the players' names were already widely available in public was through some internet chat rooms.
These were that firstly the players' names were no longer confidential and were already in the public domain, that the players had been involved in criminal conduct by taking illicit drugs and therefore had no right to confidentiality and thirdly that public interest required that the names of the players be revealed.
However Justice Kellam dismissed all three points in upholding the AFL and the AFLPA's right to keep the players' names suppressed.
"Firstly there is no evidence that the names of the players have gone to the public at large through newspapers or television or any mass media outlet," he said, adding the only evidence that the players' names were already widely available in public was through some internet chat rooms.
Does this ruling mean that "internet chat rooms" do not constitute "the public domain"? So therefore, we can discuss the identities of the people in question "in private" here on RWO? It sets an interesting precedent should an Internet forum get taken to court in the future!
Comment