This report outlines the findings of an investigation into the unreasonable threat of defamation action by Redland City Council (council) against council residents in response to comments published on social media.
The investigation commenced following complaints from two residents, Complainant A and Complainant B, who had received letters from council threatening to commence legal action against them under the Defamation Act 2005. The letters were in response to alleged defamatory comments about council, council officers and the Mayor, Karen Williams on social media websites. Both letters demanded the complainants remove their comments and post an apology to council officers and the Mayor.
The letters stated that if the complainants did not comply with these demands within a specified timeframe, council may issue a concerns notice under the Defamation Act. The letters further stated that if the complainants did not comply with the concerns notice, legal proceedings may follow.
The investigation found that council’s actions in threatening defamation proceedings against both complainants was unreasonable. The investigation further found that council’s actions in threatening to take defamation action against the complainants was:
- based on a lack of clear analysis regarding who, if anybody, was defamed by the comments
- not based on instructions from any of the allegedly defamed parties
- not a reasonable or proportional response to what was relatively minor criticism of council’s decisions.
Council also spent public funds in seeking external legal advice in drafting the letters to both complainants. The investigation determined that council did not have a policy to guide decision-making around whether to fund private legal action on behalf of councillors or council employees, and that the decision to expend public money was made solely by the council’s Chief Executive Officer.
In addition, council wrote to the employer of Complainant B advising that she had published defamatory material online. This was as a result of Complainant B’s professional signature block, which included her employer, job title and work email address, being included in an email which council alleged was defamatory.
However, the investigation determined that the email was not written by Complainant B and that there was no evidence that Complainant B had authorised her signature block be included as part of the email. Council also made no effort to determine whether Complainant B had authorised that her signature block be added to the email before contacting her employer. I have determined that council’s action in contacting Complainant B’s employer was unreasonable.
I have made recommendations to council addressing the need for training for council officers about what constitutes defamation under Queensland law as well as the development of a policy around whether to fund private legal action on behalf of council employees or councillors.
I have also recommended that council write to Complainant B and acknowledge that the decision to write to her employer was based on the mistaken belief she had published defamatory material using her professional email account, and also that council write to both complainants and withdraw the threat to take legal action in response to the comments published on social media.
During the investigation I wrote to the Director-General of the Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning (the department) to inquire whether the department would provide advice to all Queensland councils about the need for a specific policy on funding legal action for councillors and council employees. In response, the Director-General advised the department would issue a Local Government Bulletin addressing the issue. The Local Government Bulletin will include guidance on the content and scope of such a policy for councillors and employees.
Considering the risk of a recurrence of this type of incident, providing guidance to councils about funding legal action for employees is a positive development to assist councils to navigate complex situations involving public criticism by residents.