Defamation of Politicians and Public Officials: The Comparison of Thai and Australian Law

Abstract

Politicians and government officers exercise public functions and powers for the purpose of public interest. Therefore, it is important in democratic society that people and the media must have right to know and criticize their performance. In Australia, Defamation against politicians and government officers is protected as implied constitutional protection which provides appropriate defense for person who mistakenly but honestly published government or political matters to a large audience, as these matters could affect their political choice in the elections. To qualify for the political qualified privilege defense, a publisher must prove its conduct was reasonable. In order to prove its conduct was reasonable, the publisher must show that (1) it had reasonable grounds for believing the imputations were true, (2) it took proper steps to verify the accuracy of the material, (3) it did not believe the imputations to be untrue and (4) it sought out and published a response from the person defamed. In Thailand, the criminal code section 326 provides the element regarding defamation against politicians and government officers. The court also accept that public interest is founded in communicating about government
and political matter. Similar to Australia, the publisher might not be liable for defamation action for the imputation made as part of political discussion as long as it was published in good faith. The study suggests that Thai court could protect freedom of expression as part of the constitutional right.