ACT CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BOTTRILL v SUNOL (Discrimination) [2018] ACAT 21
DT 4/2017
Catchwords: DISCRIMINATION – vilification – religious conviction – what is a religion – what relief should be ordered
Legislation cited: ACT Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 s 8
Discrimination Act 1991 s 67A
Human Rights Commission Act 2005 ss 53A, 53E
Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 s 8
Cristian v Bottrill [2016] ACAT 104
Burns v Sunol [2017] NSWCATAD 215
Burns v Sunol(No 2) [2017] NSWCATAD 236
Church of the New Faith v Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax (Vict.) (1983) 154 CLR 120
Cooper v Western Area Local Health Network [2012] NSWADT 39
Harrison & Commissioner for Social Housing in the ACT and Minister for Community Services and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander [2012] ACAT 10
Margan v Taufaao [2017] NSWCATAD 216
Ordo Templi Orientis v Legg(Anti-Discrimination) [2007] VCAT 1484
Ordo Templi Orientis Inc & Anor v Devine & Anor (Anti-Discrimination) [2007] VCAT 2470
Purvis v State of New South Wales (2003) 217 CLR 92
Tribunal: Senior Member B Meagher SC
Date of Orders: 13 March 2018
Date of Reasons for Decision: 13 March 2018
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ) DT 4/2017
BETWEEN:
DAVID BOTTRILL
Applicant
AND:
JOHN SUNOL
Respondent
TRIBUNAL:Senior Member B Meagher SC
DATE:13 March 2018
ORDER
The Tribunal orders that:
1.The respondent remove from any website or social media, that he owns or controls, any statements, information, suggestions or implications, including hyperlinks, to the same or similar effect, whether directly or indirectly, as those, as are contained in the post attached to the complaint to the Human Rights Commission in this matter.
2.The respondent refrain from making, publishing or distributing any statements, information, suggestions or implications, including hyperlinks on any website or social media that he owns or controls, to the same or similar effect, whether directly or indirectly, as those, as are contained in the post attached to the complaint to the Human Rights Commission in this matter, including allowing any such matter to remain on any website or social media that he owns or controls.
3.The respondent otherwise refrain from making, publishing or distributing in the ACT any statements, information, suggestions or implications to the same or similar effect, whether directly or indirectly, as those, as are contained in the post attached to the complaint to the Human Rights Commission in this matter.
………………………………..
Senior Member B Meagher SC
REASONS FOR DECISION
1.The background to this matter has been set out in an earlier decision[1] in the same matter made on 9 October 2017. The Attorney General for the ACT had intervened and provided submissions in respect of that decision. The Attorney General has since informed the Tribunal that he does not propose to take any further part in the hearing.
[1]
Continue reading Bottrill v Sunol
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Bottrill v Sunol [2018] ACAT 21
- Case
- [2018] ACAT 21
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Sunol's social media posts constituted discrimination under the Act. Specifically, the Tribunal needed to determine whether the statements were made on the grounds of Bottrill's sexuality and whether they were severe enough to amount to discrimination. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider whether the statements were defamatory and if they warranted any remedial orders under the Act.
The Tribunal found that Sunol's social media posts were indeed discriminatory and defamatory against Bottrill. The posts included personal attacks and derogatory comments based on Bottrill's sexuality, which the Tribunal held to be discriminatory. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the statements were defamatory as they damaged Bottrill's reputation and exposed him to hatred. Consequently, the Tribunal issued orders requiring Sunol to remove the posts from all platforms under his control, refrain from making similar statements in the future, and to abstain from publishing or distributing such content within the Australian Capital Territory.
The Tribunal's orders were clear and specific, mandating Sunol to take immediate action to remove the offensive content and to refrain from any similar conduct in the future. This decision underscores the importance of addressing discriminatory and defamatory statements on social media platforms and the legal consequences that can follow such actions.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal orders that:
1. The respondent remove from any website or social media, that he owns or controls, any statements, information, suggestions or implications, including hyperlinks, to the same or similar effect, whether directly or indirectly, as those, as are contained in the post attached to the complaint to the Human Rights Commission in this matter.
2. The respondent refrain from making, publishing or distributing any statements, information, suggestions or implications, including hyperlinks on any website or social media that he owns or controls, to the same or similar effect, whether directly or indirectly, as those, as are contained in the post attached to the complaint to the Human Rights Commission in this matter, including allowing any such matter to remain on any website or social media that he owns or controls.
3. The respondent otherwise refrain from making, publishing or distributing in the ACT any statements, information, suggestions or implications to the same or similar effect, whether directly or indirectly, as those, as are contained in the post attached to the complaint to the Human Rights Commission in this matter.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.