Trad v Jones (No 7) [2014] NSWCATAD 225

Trad v Jones (No 7) [2014] NSWCATAD 225

The relevant audience was those listening to Mr Jones' commercial talk-back radio program at 9.20 am on 28 April 2005, approximately 151,000 to 157,000 people largely in Greater Sydney. In context, the Schedule A broadcast used highly insulting, inflammatory and dehumanising language about Lebanese males, including references to 'mongrels', 'vermin' and assertions that they 'rape, pillage and plunder'. Given Mr Jones' influence and style, the broadcast would reach the mind of an ordinary member of that audience as encouraging hatred or at least serious contempt of Lebanese males. The public interest exception was not established because the gratuitously insulting material was not...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Racial Vilification Complaint Under the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 (nsw) / Remitted Determination Following Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
The applicant's complaints of racial vilification against both respondents in relation to the Schedule A broadcast were substantiated.
Legal Topics
['racial Vilification' 'public Act' 'talk Back Radio Broadcast' 'incitement to Hatred or Serious Contempt' 'public Interest Exception' 'damages' 'costs Thrown Away']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'administrative Law' 'media and Broadcasting Law' 'costs'] ['racial Vilification' 'public Act' 'talk Back Radio Broadcast' 'incitement to Hatred or Serious Contempt' 'public Interest Exception' 'damages' 'costs Thrown Away']

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

Racial Vilification Complaint Under the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 (nsw) / Remitted Determination Following Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Who was the relevant audience to whom the Schedule A broadcast was directed?' 'Was the likely effect of the Schedule A broadcast to incite an ordinary member of the relevant audience to hate Lebanese males?' 'Was the likely effect of the Schedule A broadcast to incite an ordinary member of the relevant audience to hold Lebanese males in serious contempt?' 'Does the exception in s 20C(2)(c) of the Anti-Discrimination Act apply to the Schedule A broadcast in respect of Mr Jones?' 'Does the exception in s 20C(2)(c) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) apply to the Schedule A broadcast in respect of Harbour Radio?' 'What relief and costs orders should be made if the complaint is substantiated?']

Ratio Decidendi

The relevant audience was those listening to Mr Jones' commercial talk-back radio program at 9.20 am on 28 April 2005, approximately 151,000 to 157,000 people largely in Greater Sydney. In context, the Schedule A broadcast used highly insulting, inflammatory and dehumanising language about Lebanese males, including references to 'mongrels', 'vermin' and assertions that they 'rape, pillage and plunder'. Given Mr Jones' influence and style, the broadcast would reach the mind of an ordinary member of that audience as encouraging hatred or at least serious contempt of Lebanese males. The public interest exception was not established because the gratuitously insulting material was not...

Court Disposition

The applicant's complaints of racial vilification against both respondents in relation to the Schedule A broadcast were substantiated.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's complaint of racial vilification against the first respondent in relation to the Schedule A broadcast is substantiated." "The applicant's complaint of racial vilification against the second respondent in relation to the Schedule A broadcast is substantiated." 'The first and second respondents are...