Contempt proceedings against SMH and Age staff in Lattouf case ‘probably doomed', Nine's lawyers argue
A request by pro-Israel lobbyists to launch contempt proceedings against editors and reporters from Nine for allegedly breaching a suppression order in Antoinette Lattouf's unlawful termination case is 'probably doomed', Nine's lawyers have argued in the federal court.
The editors of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age, Bevan Shields and Patrick Elligett, are among eight individuals, including lawyers, named in the request.
The pro-Israel lobby group have alleged the newspapers breached a suppression order in Lattouf's unlawful termination case against the ABC in four articles, the court heard. The suppression order was made to protect pro-Israel individuals who had contacted the ABC to complain about Lattouf's employment.
The hearing on Wednesday began immediately after Rangiah had found Lattouf was unlawfully sacked by the ABC after an 'orchestrated campaign by pro-Israel lobbyists'.
Nine's lawyer Tom Blackburn SC told the hearing that the primary article in dispute was not in breach of the suppression order because it was published months before Lattouf took legal action, and therefore had no connection to the case.
The article, written by Michael Bachelard and Calum Jaspan in January 2024, exposed a coordinated campaign to have Lattouf removed from the ABC.
The court heard the names of people who had complained to the ABC about Lattouf were removed from the article in March, after Lattouf's trial took place in February.
Blackburn told the court that Nine newspapers were never told the identities of the the nine people – who were part of the 157 members of the Lawyers for Israel group – named in the suppression order.
'We didn't know which ones were applicants,' Blackburn said. 'We couldn't be expected to just pull the articles down.
'Any contempt prosecution is very probably doomed, because the registrar would have to think we knew the identities of the protected parties.'
Sue Chrysanthou SC, acting for the pro-Israel group, said that the registrar should prosecute the application for contempt to demonstrate the importance of such orders.
Chrysanthou reminded the court that the order was made on the grounds of safety for her clients. She pointed to an article published in the Australian which detailed how those named had faced 'death threats'.
The court heard four articles were in dispute – three of which were published before the suppression order was imposed by the court. One article was published by the Nine-owned Pedestrian.
Chrysanthou argued one article, which was published the day the suppression order was made, was in breach of the order because it had an embedded hyperlink to an earlier story that had named her clients.
She said that link was removed after her instructing solicitor contacted the journalist, Jaspan.
The court heard that the article was then amended. The update included that members of the pro-Israel lobby had had their names suppressed.
Chrysanthou argued this amendment showed Jaspan and his editors understood the 'import of the orders'.
Crysanthou told the court that over half a dozen letters were sent to the Nine papers claiming they were in breach of the order, but they received no reply.
'No acknowledgment of receipt, no response, nothing,' she told the court.
Blackburn said the lawyers acting on behalf of the pro-Israel group failed to inform them in these letters the exact identities of who fell under a suppression order, and also referred to a 'male' as one individual under the order.
Blackburn argued the mention of a male cast 'further doubt' over claims the story breached a suppression order, given the lawyers from Nine were aware the suppression order related to nine Jewish women.
The hearing will continue on 18 July.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Australian court rules ABC journalist unlawfully sacked over Gaza post
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation unlawfully sacked journalist Antoinette Lattouf after she shared a social media post criticising Israel 's war on Gaza, the Federal Court ruled. The court found the public broadcaster removed Ms Lattouf from air in December 2023 in part because of her political opinions, specifically those on the Israeli military action in the Palestinian territory. Justice Darryl Rangiah said that the ABC contravened the Fair Work Act and awarded Ms Lattouf A$70,000 (£33,400) in damages. He is yet to decide on additional penalties. The court dismissed the claim that Ms Lattouf, who is of Lebanese heritage, was fired due to her race or ethnic background. Ms Lattouf had been contracted as a fill-in presenter on ABC Radio Sydney 's Mornings programme. Just three days in – on 19 December – she reposted an Instagram story from Human Rights Watch alleging Israel had used starvation as a weapon of war in Gaza, a claim the Israeli government denied. She was removed from her role within hours. Justice Rangiah found the ABC management reacted to an "orchestrated campaign by pro-Israel lobbyists to have Lattouf taken off air" and acted hastily without identifying which policy she had violated or allowing her a chance to respond. He said the broadcaster's chief content officer at the time, Chris Oliver-Taylor, acted based on little more than a 'suspicion' that she had broken rules and was motivated by desire to "mitigate the anticipated deluge of complaints and criticism". "Within the hour, a decision was made that Lattouf would be taken off air," Justice Rangiah said, adding that the ABC senior staff were in a 'state of panic'. Criticising the ABC for failing to follow procedure, the judge pointed out that Ms Lattouf was neither warned nor provided an opportunity to defend herself. While the ABC contended that her contract had been paid in full and she was merely taken off air to protect its reputation, the judge rejected this defence. He clarified that Ms Lattouf had not been given a formal directive to avoid commentary on Israel's war on Gaza, only general advice to refrain from making controversial posts. The journalist's removal had sparked a national outcry and internal discontent at the ABC, raising concerns about political pressure and institutional support for culturally diverse staff. It had also led to a debate about editorial independence and freedom of expression within public broadcasting. Israel launched its ongoing war on Gaza after over 1,100 people were killed and 251 taken hostage during a Hamas assault on southern Israel in October 2023. Israeli forces have killed over 55,700 Palestinians so far, including 15,000 children, and left almost the entire population of nearly 2 million displaced from their homes and on the brink of starvation, according to the Hamas-run health ministry and UN agencies. Speaking outside court, Ms Lattouf said she had been 'punished for political opinion'. 'Deliberately starving and killing children is a war crime,' she said. 'Today, the court has found that punishing someone for sharing facts about these war crimes is also illegal.' The ABC, which reportedly spent A$1m (£733,998) defending the case, issued a public apology after the ruling. Its new managing director, Hugh Marks, said the matter 'was not handled in line with our values and expectations'. 'We also let down our staff and audiences and this failure has caused understandable concern among the public and inside the organisation,' he said. He acknowledged concerns over the broadcaster's independence and announced that it had reviewed and replaced its internal guidelines for social media use. 'Any undue influence or pressure on ABC management or any of its employees must always be guarded against,' Mr Marks said. Commenting on the case, legal expert Chris Merritt called the judgment a 'slap in the face' for the ABC leadership and criticised the organisation's internal processes as 'amateurish'. Once a dismissal claim was raised under Australia's Fair Work Act, he told Sky News, the onus was on the employer to prove it was lawful, something the ABC failed to do convincingly. The matter escalated to the Federal Court after a mediation attempt between Ms Lattouf and the ABC failed at the Fair Work Commission earlier this year.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Wealthy baby boomer's infuriating question about how Anthony Albanese's new tax will affect his $8MILLION in superannuation
A retiree with an $8million superannuation balance he shares with his wife has publicly asked how to arrange his finances to avoid Labor's proposed super tax hike. Under Labor's tax plan, Australians with more than $3million in super will pay an additional 15 per cent tax on the portion of their earnings above $3m. Given only an estimated 80,000 Australians have super balances above the $3m threshold, the new tax would currently affect about 0.05 per cent of the population. The limited scope and applicability of the tax hike hasn't stopped the country's top-earners from scrambling for advice on how best to shield their account balances. Enter the anonymous boomer who recently asked Sydney Morning Herald columnist Noel Whittaker whether his $8million Self Managed Super Fund (SMSF), through some eleventh-hour readjustments, could be spared the additional tax. The frugal fellow explained the facts as follows: the man, aged in his mid-to-late 80's shares the SMSF with his wife, with 58 per cent allocated to his account and 42 per cent to his wife's. In the 2025/26 financial year, they will both draw the minimum pension of nine per cent, totalling about $333,000. His first question to Mr Whittaker was: if they sold enough assets to bring the balance below $6million by June 30 next year, would they be exempt from the new tax? The answer: it depends. The tax is calculated per member, meaning if a single account held more than half the $6million balance, that account would be liable, he said. Assuming the pensioner reduced his personal super account to $3million on which he earned $400,000 over the next financial year, Mr Whittaker estimated the extra tax would cost him only $7056. His second question, which answered in the affirmative, concerned whether pension withdrawals affected the relevant balance for tax purposes. Mr Whittaker clarified that the tax only applies to the portion of a super balance over $3million. So, in his example, a balance of $3.4million would be liable to pay $7056 in tax. According to ATO data, the average Australian man has a super balance of $182,000 while the average woman has $146,000. Calculations by the Australia Institute estimate 97 per cent of Australians currently in the workforce will never have $3million in superannuation let alone the roughly $4.64million held personally by the boomer in question. Sympathies, then, were understandably in short supply among readers of the article. 'Accumulation of huge wealth with huge tax concessions and still not wanting to pay a fair share to fund a more equitable society doesn't seem right,' one user wrote. '$8millilon and they're whingeing abut paying just a little extra tax,' another user said. Another reader wrote: '$8million in super... far out! That is more than enough for two people to retire on. 'Super IS NOT an inheritance vehicle to ensure wealth is passed down the generations whilst paying the least amount of tax.' While few sympathise with the efforts of Australia's wealthiest to avoid the new tax rate, others have called out the fact the $3million threshold is not indexed to inflation. It's a position shared by the Greens, who Labor will likely have to rely on to secure the bill's passage through parliament given the Coalition's stated opposition. Economists estimate that, by 2040, a $3million threshold would be worth about $2million in today's dollars, meaning more Aussies will creep into the affected bracket. AMP economist Diana Mousina has been outspoken in her criticism of the decision not to index the bill, claiming it would eventually affect a wide swathe of earners. While the figures are widely contested, Ms Mousina calculated the average 22-year-old earning average wages for life would eventually reach the $3million threshold. 'Do you think that the proposed $3million superannuation cap tax won't impact you because the Labor government said it only impacts 0.5 per cent of people now? Think again,' she said.
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
NSW MP Gareth Ward likened to ‘vampire running a blood bank' by alleged sexual assault victim, court hears
A court has heard a New South Wales state MP's alleged sexual abuse victim was spurred to action after learning the politician had been appointed as families minister, which he likened to a vampire running a blood bank. The Kiama MP, Gareth Ward, 44, is on trial in the NSW district court after pleading not guilty to sexual intercourse without consent and indecent assault charges. He is accused of inviting a drunk 18-year-old man – who was 17 when they met – to his south coast home in February 2013. The man told the jury Ward plied him with drinks before indecently assaulting him three times in one night. He said he had been prompted to report the assaults to police in 2020 after he realised Ward had been appointed the NSW minister for families. 'I felt basically that a vampire was running the blood bank and that I had a responsibility that I needed to get it on the record,' the complainant said. He told the jury he was 'very distressed' by Ward's ministerial role and found it 'very inappropriate'. But the complainant said he was also scared of Ward's power and feared there could be 'significant consequences' if he spoke out. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email The jury heard his decision came years after he confided in a friend about the alleged assaults, only to be told he should have expected it when he went to Ward's house. '[The friend] said something to the effect of 'that was obviously going to happen' and … I must be gay for wanting to go there,' the complainant recalled. He told the jury he thought the incident was probably his fault so he decided he needed to put it aside, pretend it never happened, and 'just go on with being Gareth's bro'. The alleged assault was sparked when the 18-year-old – who had been drinking and was in a 'jocular mood' – decided to play a prank on Ward by pretending to be passed out. He alleges Ward tried to wake him up before sliding his hands into the teen's shorts, and touching his buttocks and scrotum. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion 'The heavy breath and the [feeling of] skin on skin are the two things that have stuck with me about that moment,' the complainant said during his emotional testimony. 'I felt like I shrivelled up inside myself. It was the most awkward feeling ever.' Later, he said he had been lying facedown on the bed when Ward allegedly 'mounted' him without his permission and massaged his lower back. Despite asking Ward to get off and stop, the complainant alleged the MP continued while explaining he had masseur training. Upon reflection, he said he believed Ward's unwelcome touching contributed to his subsequent drug and alcohol abuse issues. Ward is also accused of sexually assaulting a drunk political staffer after a NSW Parliament House event in 2015. The man, who was 24 at the time but is now in his 30s, alleged Ward climbed into bed with him, groped his backside and sexually assaulted him despite him repeatedly saying 'no'. Ward was charged in 2022 over the claims, which he denies.
