Burns v Sunol [2016] NSWCATAD 74

Burns v Sunol [2016] NSWCATAD 74

Certain statements published by the respondent on his website (and in one case, to which he was relevantly responsible by linking and endorsing) constituted unlawful homosexual vilification within s 49ZT(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), as they objectively had the capacity to incite hatred towards or serious contempt for homosexual men on the ground of their homosexuality; the statutory exception in s 49ZT(2)(c) did not apply as the respondent did not publish the statements reasonably and in good faith for an exempt purpose. The applicant was victimised by a specific passage published by the respondent in Complaint 3, as that conduct subjected him to real detriment on the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Complaint (anti Discrimination) / Merits Hearing and Determination
Outcome
Complaints of homosexual vilification in relation to Statement 1 of Complaint 1, Statement 1 of Complaint 2, and Passage 3 of Complaint 3 substantiated. Complaint of victimisation in relation to Complaint 3 substantiated. Other aspects of complaints dismissed. Apology ordered.
Legal Topics
['homosexual Vilification' 'victimisation' 'public Acts' 'capacity to Incite' 'exceptions to Vilification' 'orders and Remedies']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'equal Opportunity Law'] ['homosexual Vilification' 'victimisation' 'public Acts' 'capacity to Incite' 'exceptions to Vilification' 'orders and Remedies']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Complaint (anti Discrimination) / Merits Hearing and Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether respondent's communications constituted unlawful homosexual vilification under s 49ZT of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)" 'Whether respondent engaged in unlawful victimisation under s 50 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)' "Whether the complained acts were 'public acts' of the respondent" 'Whether the impugned materials had the capacity to incite hatred or serious contempt on the ground of homosexuality' 'Whether any statutory exceptions applied to the impugned conduct' 'Whether the applicant suffered a relevant detriment in respect of victimisation']

Ratio Decidendi

Certain statements published by the respondent on his website (and in one case, to which he was relevantly responsible by linking and endorsing) constituted unlawful homosexual vilification within s 49ZT(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), as they objectively had the capacity to incite hatred towards or serious contempt for homosexual men on the ground of their homosexuality; the statutory exception in s 49ZT(2)(c) did not apply as the respondent did not publish the statements reasonably and in good faith for an exempt purpose. The applicant was victimised by a specific passage published by the respondent in Complaint 3, as that conduct subjected him to real detriment on the...

Court Disposition

Complaints of homosexual vilification in relation to Statement 1 of Complaint 1, Statement 1 of Complaint 2, and Passage 3 of Complaint 3 substantiated. Complaint of victimisation in relation to Complaint 3 substantiated. Other aspects of complaints dismissed. Apology ordered.

Orders

  • ['The complaint of homosexual vilification in relation to Statement 1 of Complaint 1 is substantiated. The balance of Complaint 1 is dismissed.' 'The complaint of homosexual vilification in relation to Statement 1 of Complaint 2 is substantiated.' 'The complaint of homosexual vilification in relation to Passage 3 of...