This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jun/01/alan-jones-in-high-risk-defence-of-grantham-flood-libel-suit

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Alan Jones in high-risk defence of Grantham flood libel suit Alan Jones in high-risk defence of Grantham flood libel suit
(3 months later)
Alan Jones has mounted a high-risk defence of a $2.5m defamation lawsuit by one of Queensland’s wealthiest families, claiming he can prove they were responsible for the flood deaths of 12 people.Alan Jones has mounted a high-risk defence of a $2.5m defamation lawsuit by one of Queensland’s wealthiest families, claiming he can prove they were responsible for the flood deaths of 12 people.
In a defence that flies in the face of findings by two commissions of inquiry, Jones argues there is substantial truth to his radio broadcasts blaming a quarry owned by the Wagner family for contributing to the fatal 2011 Grantham flood.In a defence that flies in the face of findings by two commissions of inquiry, Jones argues there is substantial truth to his radio broadcasts blaming a quarry owned by the Wagner family for contributing to the fatal 2011 Grantham flood.
The four Wagner brothers, Denis, John, Neill and Joe, are suing Jones and the Australian newspaper columnist Nick Cater in the Queensland supreme court over their alleged “campaign of vilification” on Jones’ national breakfast radio show between October 2014 and August 2015.The four Wagner brothers, Denis, John, Neill and Joe, are suing Jones and the Australian newspaper columnist Nick Cater in the Queensland supreme court over their alleged “campaign of vilification” on Jones’ national breakfast radio show between October 2014 and August 2015.
The libel suit filed last November came weeks after the Grantham floods commission of inquiry, chaired by Walter Sofronoff QC, found that the quarry had not “materially contributed to the damage caused in Grantham”.The libel suit filed last November came weeks after the Grantham floods commission of inquiry, chaired by Walter Sofronoff QC, found that the quarry had not “materially contributed to the damage caused in Grantham”.
Related: Alan Jones and Nick Cater face libel case over Grantham flood claims
Jones’ defence, filed in the Queensland supreme court in February, says the relevant imputations are “substantially true because an unauthorised, manmade levee at the quarry played a role in the flood event that killed 12 people in Grantham on 10 January 2011”.Jones’ defence, filed in the Queensland supreme court in February, says the relevant imputations are “substantially true because an unauthorised, manmade levee at the quarry played a role in the flood event that killed 12 people in Grantham on 10 January 2011”.
His plea of truth extends to coverage suggesting the Wagners knew their culpability for the deaths had been covered up and “tried to persuade the [Queensland] premier that the allegations that had been made about the cover-up and who was responsible were a conspiracy theory”.His plea of truth extends to coverage suggesting the Wagners knew their culpability for the deaths had been covered up and “tried to persuade the [Queensland] premier that the allegations that had been made about the cover-up and who was responsible were a conspiracy theory”.
By pleading truth, Jones risks having large aggravated damages awarded against him if he cannot establish his case against the Wagners, whose family fortune from enterprises including concrete is estimated at $700m.By pleading truth, Jones risks having large aggravated damages awarded against him if he cannot establish his case against the Wagners, whose family fortune from enterprises including concrete is estimated at $700m.
His case will hinge on an account of the flood which is at odds with the conclusions of both the Sofronoff inquiry and an earlier commission of inquiry led by now chief justice Cate Holmes in 2012.His case will hinge on an account of the flood which is at odds with the conclusions of both the Sofronoff inquiry and an earlier commission of inquiry led by now chief justice Cate Holmes in 2012.
Court papers show that lawyers for Jones and Cater attempted to settle the libel case in November. But the Wagners rejected their offer as unreasonable, partly because it did not include the publication of a correction.Court papers show that lawyers for Jones and Cater attempted to settle the libel case in November. But the Wagners rejected their offer as unreasonable, partly because it did not include the publication of a correction.
The Wagner brothers are each suing Jones, Cater and radio stations 2GB and 4BC for general compensation of $376,500 and aggravated damages of $250,000 over the broadcasts.The Wagner brothers are each suing Jones, Cater and radio stations 2GB and 4BC for general compensation of $376,500 and aggravated damages of $250,000 over the broadcasts.
The Wagners have taken separate legal action against Channel Nine over a 60 Minutes story involving Cater, as well as the magazine Spectator Australia over a story on Cater and Jones headlined: “Dam Busters: only determined investigative journalism could burst through Grantham’s wall of lies”.The Wagners have taken separate legal action against Channel Nine over a 60 Minutes story involving Cater, as well as the magazine Spectator Australia over a story on Cater and Jones headlined: “Dam Busters: only determined investigative journalism could burst through Grantham’s wall of lies”.
The Wagners claim the radio broadcasts suggested they were “responsible for the deaths of 12 people in Grantham because a crudely constructed and unauthorised levee collapsed and flooded the town”.The Wagners claim the radio broadcasts suggested they were “responsible for the deaths of 12 people in Grantham because a crudely constructed and unauthorised levee collapsed and flooded the town”.
They further allege Jones suggested they “conspired with an engineering firm with whom [they] did frequent business in order to cover up [their] responsibility”.They further allege Jones suggested they “conspired with an engineering firm with whom [they] did frequent business in order to cover up [their] responsibility”.
Jones and Cater have defended the relevant imputations as “substantially true”. Their defence documents provide this account of the flood: “During the course of the major rain event that occurred on 10 January 2011, floodwater backed up behind the levee until such time as it was breached, releasing a torrent of water downstream towards the township of Grantham, contributing to the flood which caused the deaths of 12 residents.”Jones and Cater have defended the relevant imputations as “substantially true”. Their defence documents provide this account of the flood: “During the course of the major rain event that occurred on 10 January 2011, floodwater backed up behind the levee until such time as it was breached, releasing a torrent of water downstream towards the township of Grantham, contributing to the flood which caused the deaths of 12 residents.”
However, the Sofronoff inquiry found the only effect of the quarry was to delay the floods “by up to a few minutes”.However, the Sofronoff inquiry found the only effect of the quarry was to delay the floods “by up to a few minutes”.
“Quarry or no quarry … if there is ever another sudden dump of water in the upper catchment of the Lockyer Creek of the order of that which fell on 10 January 2011, the same thing will happen again,” it found.“Quarry or no quarry … if there is ever another sudden dump of water in the upper catchment of the Lockyer Creek of the order of that which fell on 10 January 2011, the same thing will happen again,” it found.
Sofronoff’s findings were in line with the 2012 Queensland floods commission of inquiry led by Holmes, whose own hydrological expert came to the same conclusion that the quarry played no role in exacerbating the flood.Sofronoff’s findings were in line with the 2012 Queensland floods commission of inquiry led by Holmes, whose own hydrological expert came to the same conclusion that the quarry played no role in exacerbating the flood.
Related: Grantham flood finding that quarry had no impact 'not rational', inquiry told
Four experts at Sofronoff’s inquiry shared these conclusions and “no party has submitted to me that they are wrong or even affected by the slightest doubt”, his report stated.Four experts at Sofronoff’s inquiry shared these conclusions and “no party has submitted to me that they are wrong or even affected by the slightest doubt”, his report stated.
The Wagners, in their reply to Jones and Caters’ defence, say the pleading of truth is “unjustifiable” and that they made the claims knowing them to be false or with “reckless indifference” as to whether they were true or false.The Wagners, in their reply to Jones and Caters’ defence, say the pleading of truth is “unjustifiable” and that they made the claims knowing them to be false or with “reckless indifference” as to whether they were true or false.
They noted that Sofronoff also found that they were “unfairly and viciously blamed” by some in the media for the flooding.They noted that Sofronoff also found that they were “unfairly and viciously blamed” by some in the media for the flooding.
Jones publicised Sofronoff’s findings in October last year and praised him as “by reputation, a class act”.Jones publicised Sofronoff’s findings in October last year and praised him as “by reputation, a class act”.
But the broadcaster continued to refuse to apologise to the Wagners or retract the accusations against them, the Wagners’ reply states.But the broadcaster continued to refuse to apologise to the Wagners or retract the accusations against them, the Wagners’ reply states.