Alex Greenwich wins defamation case against Mark Latham

Sydney MP Alex Greenwich has been awarded $140,000 after the Federal Court found Mark Latham defamed him when posting a homophobic tweet last year.

NSW MP Alex Greenwich, right, has been awarded $140,000 in damages after he won a Federal Court defamation challenge against Mark Latham.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles.

Alex Greenwich has been awarded $140,000 after he won a defamation case against former NSW One Nation leader Mark Latham over a graphic and homophobic tweet, in a victory he described as a “major relief” for the LGBTQI+ community.

Federal Court judge David O’Callaghan handed down his judgment in the landmark matter on Wednesday, saying the Sydney MP successfully argued Mr Latham’s tweet defamed him by implying he “engages in disgusting sexual activities”.

Mr Greenwich, who was granted $100,000 for economic loss and $40,000 for aggravated damages, said the win was a “major relief for me, my family, my staff and the LGBTQ community” and accused Mr Latham of launching a “Trump-style” attack on him.

“When Mr Latham published his tweet, my life changed forever. The tweet was, effectively, a reductionist caricature of me which caused me enormous damage,” he said in a statement. “I took legal action to repair my reputation. Mr Latham’s Tweet was personal and sexually aggressive.”

He said Mr Latham’s tweet exposed him to “hatred, contempt and ridicule”.

“I was inundated with hateful, threatening and abusive emails, letters and phone calls,” he said. “Some of these people have been charged with criminal offences and one has so far been convicted.”

The parties will return to court later this month to determine whether Mr Latham will foot the bill for Mr Greenwich’s legal team, helmed by defamation silk Matthew Collins KC.

Dr Collins, who also represented Network 10 in its landmark defamation case with former Liberal staffer Bruce Lehrmann, is rumoured to charge up to $11,000 per day.

Mr Greenwich launched defamation proceedings against Mr Latham in May last year over the tweet, alleging it carried two imputations: first, that it inferred he “engages in disgusting sexual activities” and second that it painted him as “not a fit and proper person” to be in parliament because he engages “in disgusting sexual activities”.

Justice O’Callaghan found Mr Greenwich succeeded in proving the first imputation, but not the second.

In a near-300 paragraph judgment handed down on Wednesday, Justice O’Callaghan said Mr Greenwich “suffered loss of standing” as a result of the tweet, and experienced “significant subjective hurt to feelings” aggravated by the “hate-filled venom” spouted by Mr Latham’s supporters in the wake of the original post.

“One might be forgiven for being lost for words to characterise many of the tweets and comments,” he said.

Justice O’Callaghan drew particular attention to “menacing, and very disturbing” voicemail messages from callers at Mr Greenwich’s electorate office.

“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.

Mr Greenwich also sued over Mr Latham’s comments to The Daily Telegraph in an article headlined: “‘Boo-hoo’: Latham doubles down after homophobic tweet outcry.”

“When (Mr Greenwich) calls someone a disgusting human being for attending a meeting in a church hall, maybe attention will turn to some of his habits,” Mr Latham was quoted as saying. “Greenwich goes into schools talking to kids about being gay. I didn’t want to be accused of anything similar, leaving that kind of content on my socials.”

Greenwich alleged those comments inferred that he “is a disgusting human being who goes to schools to groom children to become homosexual” and “is not a fit and proper person to be a member of the NSW parliament because he goes to schools to groom children to become homosexual”.

Mr Latham defended the tweet and his quotes to The Daily Telegraph, arguing they were based on an “honest opinion” and related to matters firmly in the public interest.

Justice O’Callaghan found Mr Greenwich did not succeed in proving Mr Latham’s quotes to The Daily Telegraph carried defamatory imputations.

In April last year, Mr Greenwich’s lawyer Nicholas Stewart sent a concerns notice – the first step in defamation action – to Mr Latham, which contained a settlement offer and said Mr Greenwich would not proceed with the lawsuit if Mr Latham issued a public apology.

The settlement offer also included the condition that Mr Latham cover Mr Greenwich’s legal expenses up until that point and pay $20,000.

Mr Latham’s lawyer Danny Eid responded by saying the settlement offer was rejected. Mr Eid said in his response that the tweet was not defamatory, nor was it defamatory to accuse someone of engaging in a homosexual sexual act.

Mr Latham was sacked as the leader of the NSW branch of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party in August last year, with Senator Hanson publicly saying the decision was based on the party’s vote at the March state election and a need to conduct a “comprehensive review of the party’s organisation ahead of future election campaigns”.

However, a rift formed between Mr Latham and Senator Hanson after she condemned his tweet about Mr Greenwich and instructed him to apologise.

He quit the party entirely at the end of August and now sits as an independent.

The matter will return to court later this month for an argument on the award of legal costs.