Understanding Criminal Defamation in Queensland: A 2026 Update

Last updated 17 February 2026

In today’s fast-paced digital world, sharing information is easier than ever, but so is the risk of spreading harmful falsehoods. While many are familiar with civil defamation cases, Queensland law also imposes serious criminal penalties for defamatory conduct under the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld). This means that publishing certain defamatory material can lead not only to lawsuits but also to imprisonment.

Criminal defamation is considered a misdemeanour when a person publishes defamatory matter about another living individual and either knows the information is false or shows no regard for its truthfulness. Additionally, the person must intend to cause serious harm or be reckless about whether serious harm will result from the publication.

The law takes these offenses very seriously because of the potential damage they can cause. The maximum penalty for criminal defamation in Queensland is three years imprisonment, reflecting the state’s commitment to protecting individuals from malicious attacks on their reputation and wellbeing.

Criminal defamation often emerges in situations where false information is spread maliciously to incite violence or widespread panic. For example, deliberately circulating a false rumor about a terrorist attack by a religious group can create fear, social division, and immediate danger to public safety.

Example: Spreading a false rumor of a terrorist attack by a religious group to incite panic and violence.

While freedom of expression remains a fundamental right, it does not protect the deliberate or reckless spread of harmful falsehoods. Queensland’s Criminal Code serves as a clear warning that publishing defamatory material with intent or reckless disregard for serious harm can lead to criminal prosecution. Before sharing damaging information, it is crucial to verify its truthfulness and consider the potential consequences for those involved.

In the eyes of the law, ignorance of the truth is not a defense when serious harm results. Responsible communication is essential to maintaining both personal dignity and public safety.

Notable Defamation Cases

Mickle v Farley [2013] NSWDC 295

Mr Farley, a former student at a high school in New South Wales, published a number of comments on Facebook and Twitter about the music teacher at his former high school. The comments were found to be untrue and had a devastating effect on the music teacher. The court ordered the former student to pay the teacher the sum of $105,000. Obviously, the defamatory comments were published before the introduction of the ‘serious harm’ test in July 2021.

Burrows v Houda [2020] NSWDC 485

The court ruled that emojis can be considered as defamatory. In this case, Mr Houda tweeted a link to a newspaper article. Several third parties replied to the original tweet and included emojis within their comments. The court found that the words and emojis in the comments and replies were capable of being defamatory and that an ordinary reasonable reader of tweets would come to that view. This was a case of joining the dots on social media between the emojis used and the surrounding context, which included links to articles posted in the original tweet. A social media account holder can be a publisher of comments and replies where they have sufficient control of the account and particularly when they encourage third parties to post comments (Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd v Voller; Nationwide News Pty Limited v Voller; Australian News Channel Pty Ltd v Voller [2021] HCA 27). Therefore, Mr Houda was the responsible publisher for the comments on his tweet.

Peros v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 3) [2024] QSC 192

Mr Peros brought defamation proceedings over a podcast episode (Episode 13), which he claimed imputed that he was guilty of murdering his ex-partner, Shandee Blackburn. The proceedings were brought against the publisher of the podcast series (Nationwide News Pty Ltd), its producer and the sister of Ms Blackburn (the defendants). For context, some years prior to the proceedings, Mr Peros had been acquitted of murdering Ms Blackburn. Following this, a coroner conducted an investigation and found that Ms Blackburn died due to a violent incident involving Peros using a bladed instrument. This finding was widely reported, including in the podcast. Section 10A of the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld) required Mr Peros to prove that Episode 13 caused, or was likely to cause, ‘serious harm’ to his reputation. The court dismissed the proceedings and held that Mr Peros had not met the serious-harm threshold to bring a defamation claim. This was because Mr Peros’ reputation had already been significantly harmed by the coroner’s findings and earlier coverage, consequently the court was not persuaded that Episode 13 had caused sufficient further harm to Mr Peros’ reputation to amount to serious harm. However, the court noted that if Episode 13 had been a stand-alone publication, then the serious-harm test may have been met.

Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited [2024] FCA 369 (Trial Judgement)

Mr Lehrmann is seeking permission to appeal the case to the High Court. [Warning: discusses rape and sexual assault] Mr Lehrmann brought defamation proceedings against Network Ten Pty Limited and Lisa Wilkinson (the defendants) in relation to an episode of Network Ten’s program, the Project. Mr Lehrmann claimed that the episode imputed that he was guilty of raping Brittany Higgins. The episode aired in 2021, following a news story about Ms Higgins’ allegations of rape at Parliament House, where both she and Mr Lehrmann were employed. Later that year, criminal proceedings were brought against Mr Lehrmann for allegedly engaging in sexual intercourse with Ms Higgins without her consent. During the trial, the jury were discharged due to juror misconduct, and the proceedings were discontinued. In this defamation case, the defendants raised the defence of substantial truth. The court dismissed the case and held that the defence was made out by the defendants. It was determined, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Lehrmann did rape Ms Higgins. In his trial judgement, Justice Lee referred to the fact that after avoiding criminal prosecution, Mr Lehrmann decided to bring the defamation proceedings, remarking that ‘[h]aving escaped the lions’ den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat’. On appeal, in Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited [2025] FCAFC 173, the court dismissed Mr Lehrmann’s case, upholding the trial judgement. This judgment did not equate to a criminal conviction, but did find that, on the balance of probabilities, Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins in a civil context.