Page:Greenwich v Latham (2024, FCA).pdf/63

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

Conclusion

216 The honest opinion defence thus fails.

Common law qualified privilege (reply to attack)

217 At common law, a defence of qualified privilege is available where a defendant publishes a reply to a defamatory attack by the plaintiff.

218 In his defence, Mr Latham pleaded the following matters in support of his defence of common law qualified privilege (reply to attack) in respect of the primary tweet:

Common Law Qualified Privilege Reply to Attack – Primary tweet

38. On 22 March 2023, Greenwich had a telephone call with Olivia Ireland in which he said the following words attacking Latham (Greenwich's attack):

"Mark Latham is a disgusting human being and people who are considering voting for One Nation need to realise they are voting for an extremely hateful and dangerous individual who risks causing a great deal of damage to our state."

39. On 22 March 2023, Ms Ireland writing on the Sydney Morning Herald website republished Greenwich's attack in her article titled "Video shows LGBTQ protestors pleading for help outside Mark Latham event" (Online SMH attack).

40. On 22 March 2023, Susan Metcalfe republished Greenwich's attack on her account on the Twitter platform with the handle @susanamet attributed to Greenwich with a hyperlink to Ms Ireland's article, the Online SMH attack (Tweet attack).

41. On 22 March 2023, Greenwich provided to media outlets for republication a video press release, a transcript of which is annexed and marked "Schedule A" (Pre-recorded Attack) that, inter alia, further attacked Latham by claiming that "For weeks, months and almost years, Mark Latham has been whipping up these thugs into a violent frenzy". The Pre-recorded Attack, or parts thereof, were republished by 7News, Nine News and Sky News by television and online broadcasts to a public audience;

42. On 22 March 2023, Jordan Baker and Perry Duffin writing in the Sydney Morning Herald print edition republished Greenwich's attack in their article entitled "'Time to rise': Christian activist charged after protest violence" (Second Online SMH attack).

43. On 23 March 2023, Jordan Baker and Perry Duffin writing in the Sydney Morning Herald print edition republished Greenwich's attack in their article entitled "Police keeping eye on militant religious groups after protests" on page 7 of that edition (Print SMH attack).

44. On 30 March 2023, in direct reply to the Tweet attack republishing both Greenwich's attack and the Online SMH attack, Latham published the Primary Tweet, as a comment on that tweet, Latham posted the Primary Tweet.

45. Latham posted the Primary Tweet pursuant to a duty or interest to respond to the attack on his reputation that occurred in Greenwich's attack, the Online

Greenwich v Latham [2024] FCA 1050
59