Latham tweet ‘offensive, crass, vulgar’ but not defamatory, court told

A tweet by former NSW One Nation leader Mark Latham targeting independent Sydney MP Alex Greenwich over his sexuality was “offensive and crass and vulgar” but it did not defame him, Latham’s barrister has told the Federal Court.

Greenwich filed defamation proceedings against Latham last year after the 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”.

NSW independent upper house MP Mark Latham and his barrister Kieran Smark, KC, outside the Federal Court in Sydney.Credit: Dominic Lorrimer

Greenwich is also suing Latham over related comments he made to Sydney’s The Daily Telegraph on April 1.

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

On the second day of the defamation trial, which started in Sydney on Wednesday, Latham’s barrister, Kieran Smark, SC, said the tweet was “offensive and crass and vulgar, but we’ll have to grapple with it all”.

Tweet ‘didn’t wound reputation’

“What we say globally is that Mr Latham’s tweet may have wounded Mr Greenwich, but it didn’t wound his reputation,” Smark said. He said the function of the law of defamation was the protection of reputation.

“In a sense it’s not a defamation case at all, on our contention. It’s a case about offensive conduct,” Smark said.

Tweet posted after election

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

Four days 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 on Wednesday that “Alphabet” appeared to be a derogatory term for the LGBTQI community.

Alex Greenwich and Dr Matt Collins, KC, outside the Federal Court in Sydney on Wednesday.Credit: Dominic Lorrimer

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”.

Five days after the election, Latham tweeted in response to Greenwich’s earlier remarks: “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 on Thursday that the initial tweet was “plainly not a tweet about homosexual sex”, but was a “description of a disgusting, filthy, unhygienic sexual activity”.

This was “not to be equated with homosexual sexual activity” because there was “nothing inherently homosexual about it at all”, Collins said.

“To suggest that that is to be equated to homosexual sex is something one would not expect to hear in one of his majesty’s courts in the third decade of the twenty-first century.”

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

Greenwich’s claim

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

He alleges 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”.

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

Latham’s defence

Smark submitted the tweet was “vulgar and shocking”, but it did not convey the defamatory meanings alleged by Greenwich. Separately, he said it did not meet a new serious harm test for bringing a defamation claim.

However, if the court finds Greenwich was defamed by the tweet and serious harm was established, Latham is seeking to rely on defences including honest opinion.

Smark said there was also a “fierce contest” about whether the Telegraph comments conveyed the defamatory meanings alleged by Greenwich. If the court finds they were conveyed, Smark said there was no question they met the serious harm test. In that event, Latham is seeking to rely on defences including public interest.

The trial is expected to conclude on Friday.

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.