Collier v Sunol [2005] NSWADT 261

Collier v Sunol [2005] NSWADT 261

The Tribunal was comfortably satisfied that Mr Sunol was responsible for publishing the disputed statements on a publicly accessible website. Posting the statements on websites accessible without a password was a public act. Statements (d), (e), (f), (h) and (i) incited hatred or serious contempt on the ground of homosexuality and were not published reasonably for religious instruction or other purposes in the public interest. Statement (a) lacked the necessary incitement, and statements (b) and (g), although containing strong epithets and allegations, were directed to the Mardi Gras or its leaders and were not shown to incite on the ground of homosexuality.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Vilification Homosexual / Principal Matter
Outcome
Application upheld in relation to statements (d), (e), (f), (h) and (i), dismissed in relation to statements (a), (b) and (g), with statement (c) not pressed; relief and costs deferred for further hearing.
Legal Topics
['internet Publication' 'public Act' 'incitement to Hatred or Serious Contempt' 'statutory Exceptions' 'religious Instruction and Public Interest Exception']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'equal Opportunity' 'homosexual Vilification'] ['internet Publication' 'public Act' 'incitement to Hatred or Serious Contempt' 'statutory Exceptions' 'religious Instruction and Public Interest Exception']

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

Vilification Homosexual / Principal Matter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Sunol was responsible for publishing the complained-of internet statements.' 'Whether posting the statements on publicly accessible websites was a public act under s 49ZS of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.' 'Whether the statements incited hatred towards or serious contempt for a person or group on the ground of homosexuality under s 49ZT(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.' 'Whether any statement was protected by the exception in s 49ZT(2)(c) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was comfortably satisfied that Mr Sunol was responsible for publishing the disputed statements on a publicly accessible website. Posting the statements on websites accessible without a password was a public act. Statements (d), (e), (f), (h) and (i) incited hatred or serious contempt on the ground of homosexuality and were not published reasonably for religious instruction or other purposes in the public interest. Statement (a) lacked the necessary incitement, and statements (b) and (g), although containing strong epithets and allegations, were directed to the Mardi Gras or its leaders and were not shown to incite on the ground of homosexuality.

Court Disposition

Application upheld in relation to statements (d), (e), (f), (h) and (i), dismissed in relation to statements (a), (b) and (g), with statement (c) not pressed; relief and costs deferred for further hearing.

Orders

  • ['The Application is upheld in relation to the following statements set out in paragraph 2.3 of the Points of Claim as amended: (d), (e), (f), (h) and (i).' 'The parties are to address us on the matter of what orders we should make by way of relief and with regard to costs. We direct the Registry to arrange a...