A social media post about Independent MP Alex Greenwich has cost former New South Wales (NSW) One Nation leader Mark Latham $140,000 (US$93,200) in damages after a court rejected both lines of his defence.
Latham, now an independent MP in the NSW upper house, also repeated the comments in several interviews.
Greenwich launched proceedings last year after Latham posted a highly graphic and offensive comment on Twitter, now X, on March 30.
Earlier, Latham had spoken at an event about what he called “religious freedom, parental rights, school education, and protecting [non-government] schools from Alphabet Activism.”
About 15 LGBT protesters outside the event were reportedly confronted by violent counter-protesters, leading Latham to accuse Greenwich in a subsequent interview of instigating a violent protest.
In response, Greenwich called him a “disgusting human being.”
Replying to Greenwich, Latham said, “Disgusting?” and made comments suggesting that Greenwich engaged in “disgusting sexual activities.”
Greenwich, who is gay, described the comment as “defamatory and homophobic.”
This led One Nation leader Pauline Hanson to remove Latham as the party’s parliamentary leader.
Serious Harm to MP’s Reputation
The case was heard in May and June in Sydney, and on Sept. 11, Federal Court Justice David O’Callaghan handed down his judgement in Melbourne.“I have found that the first imputation relating to the primary tweet being that Mr. Greenwich engages in disgusting sexual activities was conveyed,” the judge said.
However, he did not agree that the X post implied Greenwich was not a fit and proper person to be a member of the NSW parliament, nor did a later interview by Latham convey the defamatory meanings Greenwich had alleged.
The judge said Greenwich had “established that the publication of the primary tweet has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to his reputation” and that he should receive $100,000 in damages for non-economic loss and $40,000 in aggravated damages.
“Mr. Latham relied on two defences in relation to the publication of the primary tweet, namely honest opinion and common law qualified privilege, reply to attack. I have found that neither defence has been made out,” O’Callaghan said.
The barrister representing Latham, Kieran Smark SC, had argued that while the post was “offensive and crass and vulgar,” it did not injure Greenwich’s reputation.
“In a sense it’s not a defamation case at all ... It’s a case about offensive conduct,” Smark said.
Speaking outside the court, Greenwich said he felt “relief and vindication.”
“The moment that tweet went out into the world, my life changed. I dealt with an onslaught of abuse that I’ve never experienced in my life.”
He said he hoped the judgment would have a “chilling effect” on “Trump-style attacks.”
“We should have a higher standard of political discourse in Australia, and this judgment says that,” he said.
The judge ordered the parties to return to court on Sept. 25 for a hearing on final orders, including interest on the damages awarded and legal costs.
