question as to why so many questions are being asked about the applicant's past. In para 7, there is reference to the applicant in the context of the struggle some veterans face readjusting to civilian life. In para 14, there is reference to the photograph of the applicant and "a tearful Batty" and a statement that the photograph fitted the applicant's public ethos, "which was to value 'moral courage' above physical prowess and 'cherish your family every single day'". In para 27, there is reference to further allegations that suggested that the applicant was struggling with the difficult task of living up to all that was expected of him and in para 53, there is reference to some of his SAS colleagues asking if the decorated warrior might have shirked scrutiny because less experienced soldiers were worried about challenging him.
90 I reject each of the respondents' arguments and conclude that the Group 3 articles convey or communicate Imputations 7, 8, 9 (as reformulated), 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.
91 In conclusion, the Group 1 articles convey or communicate Imputations 1, 2 and 3. The Group 2 articles convey or communicate Imputations 1, 4, 5 and 6. The Group 3 articles convey or communicate Imputations 7, 8, 9 (as reformulated) 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.
PART 3 — SUBSTANTIAL TRUTH AND CONTEXTUAL TRUTH
Section 1 — Issues Relating to the Fact Finding Exercise in these Proceedings
92 There are a number of principles which I must apply and take into account in approaching the fact finding exercise involved in the consideration of the respondents' defences. They are addressed in this Part.
The Onus of Proof
93 As I have said, the respondents have pleaded a defence of justification or substantial truth under's 25 of the Defamation Act in relation to each of the imputations. Section 4 of that Act contains a definition of the words "substantially true" and it is "true in substance or not materially different from the truth". The respondents have also pleaded a defence of contextual truth under's 26 of the Defamation Act.
94 The respondents carry the onus of proof with respect to their defences. The respondents must establish that every material part of an imputation is true and the defence of substantial truth is concerned with meeting the sting of the defamation. In Channel Seven Sydney Pty Ltd v Mahommed [2010] NSWCA 335; (2010) 278 ALR 232 (Channel Seven Sydney v Mahommed), the New South Wales Court of Appeal said the following (at [138]):
