The staid and arcane legal world rarely makes for thrilling reading. It’s typically filled with impenetrable legalese that works better as an insomnia remedy than a laff riot.
And thus it is refreshing and delightful to enjoy the uncharacteristically blunt public pronouncements by Federal Court Justice Michael Wigney that he was throwing out the entire defence offered by Mark Latham in response to a defamation case brought against him by journalist Osman Faruqi.
The issue began when Latham reportedly claimed in a video on his Outsiders website that Faruqi was engaged in “anti-white racism” and that “These people are fermenting [sic] hatred of white people. And as such, they are effectively encouraging the terrorists in this political environment, to do their worst”.
Farqui sued for defamation over the video, and Latham responded with a 76 page document to the court which sounds more like a thesis than a legal defence.
There was a glossary of terms. There was a “dramatis personae”. There were two pages of “Islamic terrorist atrocities”.
To put it bluntly, these are not common things in a defamation defence.
Just one of the highlights from the judgement. Effed!
And hopefully Latham will be able to repurpose his defence for a novella or something, because according to this judgement it’s apparently not actually a defence – and bits are “frivolous and vexatious”.
The ruling begins: “What does the martyrdom of Christians in the Roman Empire between the reign of the Emperor Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus and Emperor Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus have to do with a defamation action commenced in Australia in 2017? … These and other equally beguiling questions are raised by the interlocutory applications filed by the parties in this matter.”
And the upshot? “Much of the material relied on by Mr Latham in relation to this fundamental part of his defence is, in any event, inappropriate commentary, history, narrative material, or material of such a general evidentiary nature that Mr Faruqi could not reasonably be expected to respond or plead to it.” In other words, nup.
The entire judgement is here and is worth reading for yourself. It’s… um, not short.
Latham can still offer up a new defence, and has until 28 September to do so – although he’s also tweeted the following.
Last year I criticised a Tweet by Osman Faruqi attacking white-skinned people.
Today Wigney said, "But really, what does one expect from Twitter, or social media generally; deep, insightful analysis?"
What sort of legal analysis is this?
The Wigney judgement will be appealed.— Real Mark Latham (@RealMarkLatham) August 30, 2018
We wait with keen interest to see what the next one features. We bet it’ll be dynamite!