Burns v Smith

Case [2019] NSWCATAD 56


Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Burns v Smith [2019] NSWCATAD 56
Hearing dates: 30 January 2019
Date of orders: 11 April 2019
Decision date: 11 April 2019
Jurisdiction:Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: M Tibbey Senior Legal Member
F Given, Community Member
Decision:

Order
1. The complaint alleging unlawful vilification is substantiated.
2. The Respondent is ordered to pay the sum of $10,000 to the Applicant within 28 days of the date of this decision.

Catchwords: HUMAN RIGHTS – homosexual vilification – meaning of “public act” – whether the publication had the capacity to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, homosexual person.
Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Alexander v Home Office [1998] 1 WLR 968
Burns v Corbett; Burns v Gaynor; Attorney General for New South Wales v Burns; Attorney General for New South Wales v Burns; New South Wales v Burns [2018] HCA 15
Burns v Dye [2002] NSWADT 32
Burns v Laws (No 2) [2007] NSWADT 47
Burns v Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd (No 2) [2005] NSWADT 24
Burns v Sunol [2012] NSWADT 246
Burns v Sunol [2018] NSWCATAD 10
Carter v Brown [2010] NSWADT 109
Cohen v Hargous [2006] NSWADT 275
Collier v Sunol [2005] NSWADT 261
Eatock v Bolt (No 2) [2011] FCA 1180
Jones v Trad [2013] NSWCA 389
Kazak v John Fairfax Publications Ltd [2000] NSWADT 77; Western Aboriginal Legal Service Ltd v Jones [2000]
Margan v Manias [2015] NSWCA 288
Margan v Taufaao [2017] NSWCATAD 216
Nicholls and Nicholls v Director General, Dept of Education and Training [No 2] [2009] NSWADTAP 20
R v D & E Marinkovic [1996] EOC 92
Russell v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service and Nine Individual Police Officers [2001] NSWADT 32
Sunol v Collier and Anor (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 44
Western Aboriginal Legal Service v Jones [2000] NSWADT 102
Category:Principal judgment
Parties:

Garry Burns (Applicant)

  Blair Smith (Respondent)
Representation:

Applicant: Self Represented

  Respondent: No appearance
File Number(s): 2018/00250640
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Complaint

  1. This was a Complaint made by the Applicant, Mr Garry Burns, on 5 June 2018 to the Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW (‘the Board’) alleging homosexual vilification on a Facebook page.

  2. The Complaint was made in relation to a comment posted by Mr Blair Smith on Mr Bernard Gaynor’s Facebook page on 19 April 2018 as follows:

“The same Garry Burns who is on the record advocating for paedophile rights, and acceptance of their practices in the rainbow world. This sick filthy piece of human filth needs to be put down, just like we do to sick animals…After all…it would be the humane thing to do.”

  1. The comments were followed by a smiley face.

Surrounding Context for the Facebook Post

  1. A series of posts on the Facebook page form part of the Report of the President of the Board, indicating the context of the post. These posts show that the comment alleged to vilify Mr Burns was made in…

Continue reading Burns v Smith

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Burns v Smith [2019] NSWCATAD 56
Case
[2019] NSWCATAD 56
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Burns v Smith is a case before the Australian Human Rights Commission, where the Applicant, Burns, alleged that the Respondent, Smith, had engaged in an act of vilification against him due to his sexual orientation. Smith had published a blog post that Burns claimed targeted him and other homosexual individuals. The nature of the dispute centres on the interpretation of the term "public act" within the vilification laws and whether Smith's blog post had the potential to incite hatred towards, or serious contempt for, homosexual people.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was the definition and scope of "public act" in the context of the anti-vilification laws. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether Smith's blog post, which was accessible to the public online, constituted a "public act." Another issue was whether the content of the blog post had the capacity to incite hatred or serious contempt towards homosexual individuals. The court also needed to consider the principles of freedom of expression in its deliberations.

In its decision, the court found that Smith's blog post did indeed constitute a "public act" because it was published online and accessible to the public. The court determined that the content of the blog post had the potential to incite hatred or serious contempt towards homosexual people, as it contained derogatory and offensive language. The court balanced the right to freedom of expression against the need to protect individuals from vilification and found that the latter took precedence. Consequently, the court substantiated the complaint of unlawful vilification and ordered Smith to pay $10,000 to Burns within 28 days of the decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order

1. The complaint alleging unlawful vilification is substantiated.

2. The Respondent is ordered to pay the sum of $10,000 to the Applicant within 28 days of the date of this decision.

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.