Mark Latham’s big legal loss to Sydney MP over homophobic tweet
Mark Latham has lost his high-profile defamation battle with a Sydney MP over a homophobic tweet that crudely described a sex act.
Mark Latham has lost his Federal Court defamation battle with Alex Greenwich over a homophobic tweet that crudely described a sex act, with the court ordering him to pay $140,000 after the NSW MP was bombarded with “hate-filled venom”.
Mr Greenwich on Wednesday hailed the victory as a “major relief” for his family and the LGBTQ community after he launched defamation proceedings in the Federal Court against the controversial Mr Latham.
His legal team, headed by prominent barrister Dr Matt Collins KC, successfully argued Mr Latham painted him as someone who “engages in disgusting sexual activities”.
“I took legal action to repair my reputation,” Mr Greenwich said in a statement.
“Mr Latham’s tweet was personal and sexually aggressive. 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.”
Mr Greenwich said the tweet exposed him to “hatred, contempt and ridicule” and he was inundated with “hateful, threatening and abusive emails, letters and phone calls”.
In a judgment handed down in Melbourne on Wednesday, Justice David O’Callaghan ruled in favour of Mr Greenwich, finding that the tweet conveyed the meaning that Mr Greenwich “engaged in disgusting sexual activities” and that it was defamatory.
He also rejected Mr Latham’s defence of honest opinion and qualified common law privilege.
He also found that the tweet did not carry a further imputation that Mr Greenwich was “not a fit and proper person” to sit in parliament.
Mr Greenwich also sued over comments made by Mr Latham in The Daily Telegraph.
However, Justice O’Callaghan found the quotes did not carry the meaning alleged by Mr Greenwich.
Mr Greenwich was awarded $100,000 for non-economic loss and $40,000 for aggravated damages.
The episode occurred in the wake of Mr Latham accepting an invitation to speak at a Catholic church in Belfield in southwestern Sydney about “religious freedom, parental rights, school education and protecting (non-government) schools from Alphabet Activism and lawfare”.
About 15 LGBTQI protesters were involved in a “violent” confrontation with counter protesters from “Christian Lives Matter” at the event, the court heard.
Mr Greenwich was later quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald as describing Mr Latham as “a disgusting human being”.
In response to a tweet about Mr Greenwich’s criticism, Mr Latham replied with a vulgar description of a sex act.
The tweet was deleted after a few hours but in the time it remained online it was seen 6,171 times.
Dr Collins described Mr Greenwich as being the subject of an “utterly hateful torrent of abuse and vitriol” in the wake of Mr Latham’s social media comment.
During the trial, Dr Collins pointed to messages received by Mr Greenwich’s electoral office, some of which contained homophobic slurs.
Justice O’Callaghan described the messages as “vile”, “offensive”, “in some cases confusing”, “threatening” and “deranged”.
Mr Greenwich also received a letter at his parliamentary office in October 2023 which was so concerning he made a complaint to police.
Justice Callaghan further described many of the messages received by Mr Greenwich and his office as “hate-filled venom”.
He provided numerous examples of the vitriol aimed at Mr Greenwich, including that he was a “depraved grub”.
However most are too crude and homophobic to publish.
“As the epithets (received by Mr Greenwich) make plain, the communications that Mr Greenwich received as a result of the primary tweet clearly indicate that he has suffered harm to his reputation because of its publication,” Justice O’Callaghan said.
“That evidence, in combination with the inherent tendency of the imputation that he engages in disgusting sexual activities ... means I am satisfied that the publication of the primary tweet has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to his reputation.”
Mr Latham’s barrister Kieran Smark SC argued at trial that Mr Latham was “defending” himself by publishing the “crass and vulgar tweet”.
He asked the court to consider the “context” of the political attack in which the tweet was made.
However Justice O’Callaghan found Mr Latham’s reply was not proportionate to Mr Greenwich’s criticism of him.
“(Mr Greenwich’s) attack was strongly worded, to be sure, but it was essentially about politics and, in substance, urged electors not to vote for Mr Latham because of his views about LGBTQIA+ issues,” Justice O’Callaghan said.
Mr Latham declined to settle the lawsuit for $20,000 in 2023, court documents previously revealed.
The matter will return to court later this month for an argument on the award of legal costs.
Jury retires in trial of cop who tasered 95yo
The jury has retired to consider their verdict in the manslaughter trial of a police officer who fatally tasered a 95-year-old woman in a nursing home.
Beloved Aussie dead after three-word request
The young man who was stabbed to death near a popular nightspot has been remembered as a “remarkable friend”.
Mundine’s court win after Covid stoush
NRL star turned champion boxer Anthony Mundine has celebrated the end of a years-long legal battle after being found guilty of flouting Covid restrictions.