whether or not to continue in [his] political and public role as a direct result of the harm and hatred [he has] been subjected to …"
270 His own counsel did not, in the end, place any reliance on what Mr Greenwich had said in that regard, so it is unnecessary to say anything about it. If it matters, I do not accept that Mr Greenwich is still weighing up whether to continue in his role as a politician.
271 He was also cross-examined about his evidence to the effect that the publications had impacted on his ability to attend large gatherings and his assertion that the impugned publications and the subsequent hateful communications impacted on his ability to do his job. He was shown a copy of his electronic diary (Exhibit R3), which, it must be said, did rather suggest that his activities had not significantly diminished at the relevant time. Further, Mr Smark tendered a document, marked as Exhibit R2, headed "Schedule of some events involving the Applicant from July 2023", which listed a series of political activities in which Mr Greenwich had been engaged from 30 July 2023 until 8 May 2024 and which showed that Mr Greenwich has continued to be involved in his role representing the people of his electorate and the causes important to him.
272 In relation to evidence of about Mr Greenwich's reputation, Mr Smark submitted that "there is virtually no evidence or no evidence of good reputation prior to the publications in this case". He continued:
[T]he only evidence that could be considered to be good reputation evidence in all the affidavits, including the applicant's own affidavit, because applicants – people can put on evidence of their own reputation, if they choose to – is in Mr Piper's affidavit, paragraph 11, the last sentence:
Alex wouldn't have had success if he didn't have respect across the chamber.
That's unchallenged evidence that Mr Greenwich has respect across the chamber, the lower house of the New South Wales Parliament. It's not evidence of change of reputation. It's clearly Mr Piper's opinion as to his present reputation, although in fairness it probably goes back – it's probably evidence as to his reputation in that particular respect – that is, with other parliamentarians in New South Wales in the lower house – probably both before and after, to be fair. That's a very limited part of what the relevant reputation is of the plaintiff. It would be reputation with the public that would be most significant, although it's not irrelevant. We're not aware of any other evidence of good reputation. On the bad reputation side, we're not aware of any evidence at all.
273 Dr Collins put his case with respect to general damages in these terms:
In the present matter, for the reasons developed above in relation to the serious harm element of the causes of action, the Court can be comfortably satisfied that Mr Greenwich has suffered serious damage to his reputation. The award of damages must
