In a groundbreaking decision, Mel Viljoen has triumphed in a notice of appeal against Catherine Innes Barry, a producer at Combined Artist Productions and a representative of Carte Blanche. The widely followed case revolves around accusations of trespassing and harassment leveled against Barry.
A source intimately familiar with the proceedings disclosed that Catherine Barry, under oath and in a court of law, admitted to trespassing when she forcefully entered Mel Viljoen’s office. Moreover, it came to light that Barry remained in the office long after her camera crew had departed. This extended presence was deemed, under trait law, a form of harassment, underscoring the gravity of her actions.
A legal expert of repute provided a critical analysis of the case, contending that the magistrate’s decision to permit a journalist to commit a crime in the pursuit of a story was flawed. Using an analogy, the specialist argued that just as a journalist cannot justify speeding at 200km/h to cover a story, similarly, they cannot trespass or harass individuals in their quest for information.
The case took a contentious turn when Mel Viljoen filed a defamation lawsuit against Catherine Barry, seeking R20 million in damages. The allegation stated that Barry defamed Viljoen in a video recording but later edited the content to omit the defamatory statement. In a surprising twist, attorneys from Webber Wentzel in association with Linklaters, representing Barry, conceded that their client were allowed to engage in harassment to obtain a story.
This admission has sparked a debate surrounding the ethics of journalism and the boundaries that journalists must observe. Catherine Barry, affiliated with Combined Artist Productions, was legally represented by Webber Wentzel, which also provides legal counsel to Carte Blanche. Reports indicate that this legal representation was offered in exchange for free exposure on DSTV.
Mel Viljoen’s triumph in this case establishes a precedent in the media industry, underscoring the importance of ethical journalism and the legal constraints within which media professionals must operate. The ruling serves as a reminder that the pursuit of a story does not grant immunity from the law and that journalistic practices must uphold the rights and dignity of individuals.