Add Category
Independent Sydney MP Alex Greenwich has been awarded $140,000 after suing former One Nation NSW leader Mark Latham for defamation over a graphic, homophobic tweet.
Mr Latham posted the tweet in March last year, after Mr Greenwich described him as a "disgusting human being" in comments to the media.
He replied with: "Disgusting? How does that compare with…", before referring to sexual activity in words described by Mr Greenwich's counsel as revolting.
Mr Greenwich, who's been an openly gay MP for over a decade, alleged that tweet and further comments Mr Latham gave to a newspaper exposed him to hatred, contempt and ridicule, and gravely injured his professional and personal reputation.
In the Federal Court, Justice David O'Callaghan today found the tweet was defamatory because it painted Mr Greenwich as a person who "engages in disgusting sexual activities".
Mr Latham published the tweet after Mr Greenwich described him as a "disgusting human being" in comments to the media. (AAP: Dan Himbrechts)
Mr Latham's defences rejected
The judge rejected Mr Latham's defences of honest opinion and qualified privilege, awarding $100,000 for non-economic loss and a further $40,000 in aggravated damages.
Mr Latham's lawyers argued their client was publicly attacked first, conceding the comments were vulgar and shocking, but insisting they weren't defamatory.
Mr Greenwich had also argued the tweet conveyed a second defamatory imputation, that he was "not a fit and proper person to be a member of the New South Wales Parliament because he engages in disgusting sexual activities."
The judge ruled that imputation was not conveyed.
In his full written judgment, Justice O'Callaghan said there was no doubt that the result of the tweet was a loss of standing for Mr Greenwich, who was exposed to ridicule.
"It may well be that much of it was the product of people with deranged minds, as counsel on both sides said, but that is hardly any solace to Mr Greenwich," he said.
Judgment establishes 'some case law' to protect LGBTQ community, Greenwich says
Mr Greenwich said the judgment came as a "massive relief" for him, along with his husband, family, staff and community.
"It sends a clear message that you can't attack a gay person based on their perceived sexual activities," he told the ABC.
"That we are not going to accept a lowering in the tone of political discourse in this country and that you can't just say whatever you like about someone without any consequence."
Mr Greenwich said he questioned whether he should continue in his role due to the impact of the tweet. (ABC News: Keana Naughton)
The independent MP described the last 18-months as a very hard and hurtful period, but said he now has confidence the legal system was working.
"It gives me confidence that we've established some case law here that can protect other LGBTQ people," he said.
"The strength of this judgment is that we're that it is made clear that this Trump-style political attack on your opponents based on their sexuality, based on whatever you want to attack them for, has no place in the Australian public political discourse."
The judge didn't agree with a submission by Mr Greenwich's lawyers that Mr Latham had increased the hurt and harm through his defence of the case.
But he said Mr Latham's conduct, including his refusal to apologise, "rubbed salt in the wound" and was sufficient to award "modest" aggravated damages.
Earlier this year, the court heard Mr Greenwich received death threats after Mr Latham's comments from members of the public, along with repeated jibes, homophobic comments and threatening phone calls.
The judge was told Mr Greenwich tried to "put on a brave face" after Mr Latham's comments, but had panic attacks, experienced a drop in confidence and cancelled work events due to a reluctance to attend large gatherings.
He said the impact was so severe that he found himself questioning whether he should continue serving the people of NSW.
Mr Latham refused to apologise for his tweet and later spoke about Mr Greenwich to The Daily Telegraph. (ABC News: Keana Naughton)
Mr Greenwich's initial comments about Mr Latham were in the aftermath of a violent confrontation involving LGBT protesters outside a church in Sydney's west, where Mr Latham was scheduled to speak.
Matt Collins KC, representing the independent MP, said the reaction included "unbelievable epithets" about Mr Greenwich's sexuality because the tweet "went as low as possible".
Mr Latham refused to apologise for his tweet and later gave further comments about Mr Greenwich to The Daily Telegraph.
His tweet and comments knowingly and deliberately played upon "tired stereotypes" that had no place in modern Australia, according to Dr Collins – that gay men are "somehow depraved" because of their presumed sexual activities and that they cannot be trusted with children.
Mr Latham was 'mirroring the language' of Mr Greenwich, court told
Mr Greenwich had argued the Daily Telegraph quotes conveyed two defamatory imputations, but in his decision Justice O'Callaghan disagreed.
Mr Latham's lawyers also disputed that the case met a threshold for causing serious harm.
"I've also found Mr Greenwich has established that the publication of the primary tweet has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to his reputation," Justice O'Callaghan said in his decision.
Kieran Smark SC, representing Mr Latham, said the tweet may have caused "universal revulsion", but that didn't directly mean it was defamatory.
Mr Smark argued Mr Latham was "mirroring the language" of Mr Greenwich and, although it was graphic and vulgar as a response, it wasn't a disproportionate one.
The parties will return to court in two weeks to deal with any arguments about interest, costs and potential injunctive relief.