Page:Greenwich v Latham (2024, FCA).pdf/69

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

244 If I am wrong about that, it is clear that the riposte was actuated by malice, in the sense that Mr Latham was "actuated by motives of personal spite or ill will". As Mr Greenwich pleaded in his Reply as part of his particulars of malice, Mr Latham must have known that what he said in the tweet was untrue because, as his counsel admitted at the hearing, he did not know anything about the private sexual activities of Mr Greenwich.

Conclusion

245 The common law qualified privilege defence thus fails.

THE DT QUOTES: ARE THE MEANINGS CARRIED?

246 I turn now to the DT quotes. Mr Latham accepted that if either of the pleaded imputations relating to the DT quotes were carried, they are defamatory. Thus, the only question to be resolved as to meaning in relation to the DT quotes is whether the pleaded imputations were, in fact, conveyed.

247 It will be recalled that Mr Greenwich pleaded 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".

248 It is helpful to set out again the impugned published words:

Sorry for not getting back to you. Here's my response:

Sometimes, in public life, when they throw out insults, they come back at you harder and truer, so boohoo, Alex Greenwich. When he calls someone a disgusting human being for attending a meeting in a church hall, maybe attention will turn to some of his habits.

Why delete the tweets? 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.

249 The pleaded imputations can be dealt with together. They both fail, because they both depend on the proposition that the DT quotes convey the meaning that Mr Greenwich goes into schools to groom children to become homosexual, and in my view that meaning is not carried.


Greenwich v Latham [2024] FCA 1050
65