Greenwich condemns ‘Trump-style attacks’ after defamation win against Latham

Independent Sydney MP Alex Greenwich has condemned “Trump-style personalised attacks on political opponents” after he was awarded $140,000 in damages for an offensive and defamatory tweet by former NSW One Nation leader Mark Latham.

Greenwich launched defamation proceedings last year after Latham, now an independent NSW upper house MP, posted and later deleted a highly graphic and offensive comment on Twitter, now X, on March 30. Greenwich described the tweet as “defamatory and homophobic”.

Independent Sydney MP Alex Greenwich in Melbourne on Wednesday after his Federal Court win.Credit: Joe Armao

Greenwich also sued Latham over related comments he made to Sydney’s The Daily Telegraph on April 1 last year.

In a decision on Wednesday, Federal Court Justice David O’Callaghan found Greenwich was defamed by the tweet but that Latham’s comments to the Telegraph did not convey the defamatory meanings Greenwich had alleged.

He awarded Greenwich $100,000 in damages for non-economic loss and $40,000 in aggravated damages.

O’Callaghan said there was no doubt Greenwich “suffered a loss of standing [as a result of the tweet] because he was exposed to ridicule”, and that he experienced significant hurt, aggravated by the “maelstrom” of “hate-filled venom” the post unleashed among Latham’s supporters.

Independent Sydney MP Alex Greenwich with his legal team, Dowson Turco partner Nicholas Stewart, left, and barrister Dr Matt Collins, KC, right, in Melbourne on Wednesday.Credit: Joe Armao

This included “menacing, and very disturbing” voice messages from callers at his electorate office.

The judge said Latham “rubbed salt in the wound” after the tweet, including by failing to apologise.

In a statement, Greenwich said the judgment “sends a clear message that you ... can’t just say whatever you like online without consequence”.

“I wanted to stand up for myself, the LGBTQ community, and my family, to send a clear message that these Trump-style personalised attacks on political opponents have no place in Australian public life.”

The tweet led One Nation founder Pauline Hanson to remove Latham, a former federal Labor leader, as the party’s parliamentary leader.

Latham’s barrister, Kieran Smark, SC, had submitted the tweet was “offensive and crass and vulgar” but not defamatory. “In a sense it’s not a defamation case at all, on our contention. It’s a case about offensive conduct,” Smark said during the trial.

Tweet posted after election

Latham’s tweet was posted five days after the NSW election last year.

Shortly before the election, Latham had spoken at a Catholic Church in Sydney’s south-west about what he called “religious freedom, parental rights, school education and protecting [non-government] schools from Alphabet Activism”. Greenwich’s barrister, Dr Matt Collins, KC, told the court during the trial that “Alphabet” appeared to be a derogatory term for the LGBTQI community.

About 15 LGBTQI protesters outside the event were reportedly confronted by violent counter-protesters, Collins said. He said Latham “got his facts completely wrong” and accused Greenwich in a subsequent interview of instigating a violent protest.

Greenwich was later quoted in The Sydney Morning Herald describing Latham as a “disgusting human being”.

Latham tweeted in response: “Disgusting? How does that compare with [sexual activity described in graphic and offensive terms the Herald has chosen not to publish]?”

He later tweeted: “I’m very sorry for saying I hate the idea of having anal sex with another man. Has it become compulsory?”

Collins submitted that the initial tweet contained a “description of a disgusting, filthy, unhygienic sexual activity” that was “not to be equated” with homosexual sex because there was “nothing inherently homosexual about it at all”.

In the “real world”, the tweet was construed as a “vile, homophobic attack” on the openly gay Greenwich, Collins said.

Greenwich alleged the initial tweet conveyed up to two defamatory meanings, including that he engaged in disgusting sexual activities and was “not a fit and proper person to be a [NSW MP] ... because he engages in disgusting sexual activities”.

O’Callaghan found the first meaning was conveyed and that it defamed Greenwich.

Greenwich alleged Latham’s comments to the Telegraph conveyed different defamatory meanings, including that he “is a disgusting human being who goes to schools to groom children to become homosexual”. O’Callaghan found those meanings were not conveyed.

Latham had told the Telegraph: “Greenwich goes into schools talking to kids about being gay.”

Latham’s defence

The judge found the tweet met a new serious harm test for bringing a defamation claim and rejected Latham’s defences including honest opinion.

Former NSW One Nation leader Mark Latham outside the Federal Court in Sydney in May with barrister Kieran Smark, SC.Credit: Dominic Lorrimer

O’Callaghan accepted Collins’ submission that the tweet could only have been an “honestly held opinion if Mr Latham, at the time he expressed it, had a proper factual foundation for believing that that’s what Mr Greenwich does in the bedroom. And he doesn’t, as Mr Smark correctly conceded”.

University of Sydney Professor David Rolph, an expert in defamation law, said: “Exposing a person to more than a trivial degree of ridicule, even without damage to reputation, can be defamatory.

“This has been the law since the 17th century. In this case, though, the judge found reputational harm.”