imputation does not differ in substance from the pleaded imputation, it was open to the Court to allow the applicant to rely on it. Counsel for the applicant submits that if the Court felt that there is a difference in substance between the two then, in any event, there is no unfairness or unjustness to the respondents in allowing the applicant to rely on the unpleaded imputation (Stead at [31] per Lee J).
68 Finally in terms of the applicant's submissions, I note that in relation to Imputation 14 (the applicant assaulted an unarmed Afghan in 2012), the applicant withdrew a written submission to the effect that there is relevantly no difference in substance between an allegation that he committed the assault or that he, for instance, encouraged or authorised the assault.
69 The respondents submit that the imputations conveyed or communicated by the article rise no higher than reasonable grounds to suspect the matters pleaded and they drew to the Court's attention to the following well-known propositions: (1) the ordinary reasonable reader reads the whole of the article and such a person reads the article once. They do not parse and analyse the publication, nor do they have lawyers assisting them to deconstruct it; (2) the ordinary reasonable reader is not naïve and they do not live in an ivory tower. They are not morbid or suspicious; and (3) it is important to recall that it is the publication which is relevant and, although the summary document is helpful, it is not a substitute for the article.
70 The respondents addressed the imputations said to be conveyed or communicated by the Group 3 articles and, in particular, Imputations 7 and 8. The respondents submit that the ordinary reasonable reader would not comprehend meanings of guilt. They accept that the ordinary reasonable reader would comprehend meanings of suspicion, "probably even strong suspicion". It is important to recall that, in the case of Imputations 7 and 8, there is only one accuser, in other words, there is only one person making the allegation. The respondents submit that the ordinary reasonable reader would not conclude that the meaning was a meaning of guilt when regard is had to the following: (1) that the ordinary reasonable reader is told that the woman had been drinking at the event (para 111); (2) that she had fallen down some stairs at Parliament House (para 112); and (3) that she had disclosed the affair to the applicant's wife (para 114). In addition, the article states that the woman had declined to comment and that the applicant had also declined requests from Fairfax Media to be interviewed. At no stage is it stated in the article that the applicant had been interviewed by the police about the purported complaint. Furthermore, the article contains a statement of a strong denial by the applicant in para 136. The respondents submit that when all of those matters are taken into account, the
