he "is not a fit and proper person to be a member of the NSW Parliament because he engages in disgusting sexual activities".
110 Mr Latham denies that the first pleaded imputation, if carried, is defamatory.
111 He accepts that the second pleaded imputation is defamatory, if it is found to be carried.
112 Mr Greenwich also pleads that the DT quotes:
- (a) carried the imputation that he "is a disgusting human being who goes into schools to groom children to become homosexual"; and
- (b) to persons who knew that he is a member of the NSW Parliament, carried by way of true innuendo the imputation that "Mr Greenwich is not a fit and proper person to be a member of the NSW Parliament because he goes into schools to groom children to become homosexual".
113 Mr Latham accepts that if either of those pleaded imputations were carried, they are defamatory.
114 Section 10A of the Act requires Mr Greenwich to prove that the publication of each defamatory matter caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to his reputation. He pleads (and Mr Latham denies) that he has established that proof.
115 Mr Latham pleads a number of positive defences — honest opinion under s 31 of the Act and common law qualified privilege (reply to attack) with respect to the primary tweet and the DT quotes, and a Lange qualified privilege defence and a public interest defence in respect of the DT quotes, which Mr Greenwich says are either not established or are defeated by malice, as the case may be.
116 Mr Greenwich seeks substantial damages, including aggravated damages, as well as injunctive relief.
117 It is fair to say that the principal focus of the trial was the primary tweet.
118 For the reasons that appear below, Mr Greenwich succeeds with respect to the main part of his case about the primary tweet, but not at all with respect to his case about the DT quotes (because the pleaded imputations were not carried).
