Latham should pay more for ‘nausea-inducing’ tweet, court told

Former NSW One Nation leader Mark Latham should pay even more than $140,000 in damages for a “nausea-inducing” tweet that defamed Sydney MP Alex Greenwich, an appeal court has heard.

Latham, now an independent NSW upper house MP, is seeking to overturn a damning Federal Court ruling last year that he defamed Greenwich in a highly graphic and offensive post on Twitter, now X.

Federal Court Justice David O’Callaghan ordered Latham to pay Greenwich $140,000 in damages plus legal costs, which tipped the total amount payable to the Sydney MP above $500,000.

In his decision in September last year, O’Callaghan found the tweet conveyed the defamatory claim that Greenwich engages in “disgusting sexual activities”.

Latham’s two-day appeal hearing concluded in Sydney on Wednesday. The central argument by Latham’s legal team was that the tweet did not convey the defamatory meaning found by O’Callaghan.

In response to Latham’s appeal, Greenwich filed a cross-appeal and has asked the Full Court of the Federal Court to award higher damages.

‘Significant damages’

“This was a serious defamation, and it warranted a significant award of damages,” Greenwich’s barrister, Dr Matt Collins, KC, told the court on Wednesday.

“If anything, in our submission, the award of damages is modest in the circumstances. It is about a quarter of the cap [of $478,500 on damages for non-economic loss].”

Collins said the tweet “stirred up hatred, contempt and ridicule towards Mr Greenwich”, used “graphic, nausea-inducing terms” and “evidences spite [and] ill-will”.

Greenwich contends the tweet not only conveyed the meaning found by O’Callaghan, but an additional claim that he is “not a fit and proper person” to be a NSW MP “because he engages in disgusting sexual activities”.

This meaning was not found by O’Callaghan. Greenwich has asked the appeal court to make that finding and, as a consequence, to reassess damages and award a higher amount.

Collins told the court the tweet contained not only a “personal attack” but a “professional attack” that cast doubt on his fitness and propriety to be an MP. Greenwich was elected as the independent MP for Sydney in 2012.

During the trial last year, Collins described the tweet as a “vile, homophobic attack” on the openly gay Greenwich.

In submissions in court on Wednesday, Collins said Latham’s description of a sex act was “not a euphemism for homosexuality”.

‘Profanity and vulgarity’

“It’s a description of a disgusting, unhygienic sexual act. In our submission, there is an obvious unreality in the contention [by Latham’s legal team] that a tweet expressed with that profanity, with that vulgarity, with that violence, would have been shrugged off by ordinary reasonable readers as if those vile elements were not there,” Collins said.

“Those are the very elements that will have caused the ordinary, reasonable person to recoil.”

Latham’s tweet was posted five days after the NSW election in March 2023.

Shortly before the election, Latham had spoken at a Catholic Church in Sydney’s south-west about what he called “religious freedom, parental rights, school education and protecting [non-government] schools from Alphabet Activism”. Collins told the court during the trial that “Alphabet” appeared to be a derogatory term for the LGBTQI community.

About 15 LGBTQI protesters outside the event were reportedly confronted by violent counter-protesters, Collins said. He said Latham “got his facts completely wrong” and accused Greenwich in a subsequent interview of instigating a violent protest.

Greenwich later described Latham as a “disgusting human being”.

Latham tweeted in response: “Disgusting? How does that compare with [a sexual activity, described in such graphic and offensive terms that this masthead has chosen not to publish it]?”

While Latham’s primary argument is that the tweet did not convey the defamatory meaning found by the trial judge, he seeks to rely on defences of qualified privilege or honest opinion if the court forms a different view.

Justices Craig Colvin, Michael Wheelahan and Wendy Abraham will deliver their decision at a later date.

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.