41. On 22 March 2023, Greenwich provided to media shops 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 virtually years, Mark Latham has been whipping up these thugs right into a violent frenzy”. There’s then the republication of those quotes in the Daily Telegraph, which was, of course, what Mr Latham intended, as agreed on the pleading. I’ve taken your Honour, particularly those from the later period and notably after the considerations discover, may need been only indirectly caused by the original tweet after which the feedback within the Daily Telegraph, and that seems to be the case because a few of them consult with the fact of Mr Greenwich taking action towards Mr Latham. 182 Dr Collins submitted, and Mr Smark agreed, that it is “apparent” that “much of” the feedback and messages relied on by Mr Greenwich were in a causal sense “a response to the primary tweet”.
175 Mr Smark contended that Mr Greenwich had not proved that the publication of the first tweet has prompted, or is more likely to cause, critical hurt to his reputation within the that means of’s 10A(1) of Act. 157 I do not accept those submissions, as a result of, for my part, the odd reasonable individual would not learn the first tweet as being restricted to homosexual males usually, or that they’d shrug off the tweet in the way Mr Smark suggests. In my opinion, the primary tweet exposed Mr Greenwich to hatred, contempt and ridicule for the explanations submitted by Dr Collins, and the peculiar reasonable person would assume much less of Mr Greenwich because the literal which means of the tweet is that he engages in disgusting sexual actions. 2) Serious hurt could also be proven by normal inferences of fact, drawn from a combination of evidence in regards to the meaning of the words, the situation of the claimant, the circumstances of publication and the inherent probabilities. The case concerned a web-based article published on an internet site by the defendant the meaning of which had been decided at a trial of preliminary issues.
43. On 23 March 2023, Jordan Baker and Perry Duffin writing in the Sydney Morning Herald print version republished Greenwich’s attack of their article entitled “Police keeping eye on militant religious groups after protests” on page 7 of that version (Print 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 web SMH assault (Tweet assault). 204 As I have mentioned, it isn’t an easy question to reply, however I will assume in Mr Latham’s favour that the matter contained in the primary tweet was an expression of his opinion, somewhat than of fact. 207 First, assuming that the first tweet was an expression of opinion, then the opinion associated to the assumed, non-public sexual practices of Mr Greenwich. Given the large readership of the Sydney Morning Herald, Mr Latham’s use of a tweet which was online for only a few hours was proportionate in scope. 205 Mr Latham contended that the primary tweet was on a matter of public curiosity, having regard to the “context created by Mr Greenwich’s feedback printed within the Sydney Morning Herald”.
