Latham arguing for freedom of speech to make 'disgusting' allegations against MP.

Former Labor leader says his political discussions will be affected.

December 18th 2024.

Latham arguing for freedom of speech to make 'disgusting' allegations against MP.
Former Labor party leader Mark Latham has found himself in a legal battle as he fights a proposed court order that would prevent him from making derogatory statements about a rival MP. Latham argues that such an order would restrict his ability to engage in political debate.

The dispute stems from a tweet made by Latham during the 2023 state election, in which he made defamatory comments about independent MP Alex Greenwich. The tweet was made during a heated argument between the two politicians and resulted in a barrage of harassment towards Greenwich, who is openly gay and a vocal advocate for the LGBTQI community.

In a recent court appearance, lawyers for both Latham and Greenwich appeared before Justice David O'Callaghan to discuss a permanent restraint on Latham from making similar defamatory remarks in the future. Latham's legal team argued that this would impinge on his implied constitutional freedom to fully engage in political discussion. His barrister, Guy Reynolds, stated, "You're talking about restraining my client from making a comment about another MP."

Justice O'Callaghan, however, pointed out that Latham would still be free to say anything he likes about Greenwich, as long as he does not repeat the contents of the defamatory tweet. Reynolds responded by saying that Latham should not be subject to such a restriction, as there is a great deal of "cut and thrust" in politics.

On the other side, Greenwich's lawyer, Matt Collins, argued that there is a real risk of Latham repeating the defamatory comment in the future, given his desire to freely criticize the Sydney MP. Collins stated that if this were to happen, it would result in further damages, which would not be an appropriate remedy.

Collins also pointed out that the defamatory comment was a personal attack and not political commentary, as Latham's legal team had previously argued. He further stated that Latham's former legal counsel had made concessions during the trial that Latham did not agree to, including the claim that he did not know about Greenwich's private life.

Reynolds challenged Greenwich to candidly inform the court about whether he engaged in the sexual activity described in the tweet. He also questioned whether there was any genuine dispute about this issue, as Greenwich has been married for years and is openly gay.

In addition to the injunction, Greenwich's legal team has also asked the court to order Latham to pay indemnity costs for their client's legal bills. They argue that Latham could have put an end to the dispute by accepting a settlement offer of $20,000, which included a simple apology. However, Latham rejected this offer and continued to fight the case, resulting in significant legal costs for Greenwich.

On the other hand, Reynolds questioned the amount of legal costs that Greenwich's team was claiming, and also cast doubt on claims that funds donated to Climate 200 to help with the lawsuit would have to be repaid.

Justice O'Callaghan has reserved his decision on the injunction, but has ordered Latham to pay interest to Greenwich. A further hearing will be scheduled to resolve the issue of legal costs.

In the meantime, 9NEWS app users can stay updated on this and other breaking news, sports, politics, and weather by downloading the app from the Apple App Store or Google Play. With notifications sent straight to your smartphone, you'll never miss an important update.

[This article has been trending online recently and has been generated with AI. Your feed is customized.]
[Generative AI is experimental.]

 0
 0