Administrative Decisions Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Burns v Sunol [2012] NSWADT 246 Hearing dates: 26 and 27 June 2012 Decision date: 28 November 2012 Jurisdiction: Equal Opportunity Division Before: M Chesterman, Deputy President
E Hayes, Non-judicial Member
A Lowe, Non-judicial MemberDecision: 1. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this decision, the Respondent is to remove the following material from every website controlled by him:
(a) the statements reproduced as nos. 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 (first three sentences only) and 14 in paragraph [28] of the decision; and
(b) all material to the same or similar effect concerning homosexual men, lesbians or homosexuality.
2. The Respondent is to refrain from publishing the material described in Order 1 on any website, whether or not controlled by him.
3. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this decision, the Respondent is to post the following apology, attributed to him, on every website controlled by him: -
This apology is made pursuant to an order of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales (ADT) made on 28 November 2012.
On various dates between 26 February 2010 and 24 July 2011, I published statements on various websites concerning homosexuality and homosexual people.
On 28 November 2012, the ADT held that my statements amounted to unlawful homosexual vilification. The ADT found that they were capable, or had the effect, of inciting hatred or serious contempt of one or more homosexual people on the ground of their homosexuality. The ADT also found that my statements were not published reasonably and in good faith for purposes in the public interest.
I apologise for publishing these statements. I acknowledge that, although I have no issue with homosexual people or homosexuality, the words that I used vilified homosexuals in breach of the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. The aim of this Act is to promote tolerance, understanding and acceptance in the community. The Act sets limits on what can be said or done in public.
4. The Respondent is to pay to the Applicant the sum of $3,000 as compensation for the harm caused to him by the publication, amounting to homosexual vilification, of the statements reproduced as nos. 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 (first three sentences only) and 14 in paragraph [28] of this decision.
5. In addition to the amount stipulated in Order 4, the Respondent is to pay to the Applicant the sum of $3,500 as compensation for the harm caused to him by the publication, amounting to victimisation, of the statements reproduced as nos. 7 and 8 in paragraph [72] of this decision.
6. The Respondent is to forward a signed letter of apology, in the terms set out below, to the Applicant at the address set out below by ordinary post within 28 days of the date of these orders.
Mr Gary Burns
PO Box 77
PADDINGTON NSW 2021
Dear Mr Burns
The Equal Opportunity Division of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal, in a…
Continue reading Burns v Sunol
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Burns v Sunol [2012] NSWADT 246
- Case
- [2012] NSWADT 246
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the ADT had to resolve were whether the statements published by Sunol constituted unlawful vilification and victimisation under the Anti-Discrimination Act. The ADT had to determine whether these statements were published reasonably and in good faith for purposes in the public interest. Additionally, the ADT needed to assess the appropriate remedies for the harm caused to Burns by Sunol's publications.
The ADT found that Sunol's statements did indeed amount to unlawful vilification and victimisation. The Tribunal held that the statements were capable of inciting hatred or serious contempt of homosexual people on the ground of their homosexuality and were not published reasonably and in good faith for purposes in the public interest. As a result, the ADT ordered Sunol to remove specific statements from his websites and to refrain from publishing similar material in the future. Sunol was also required to issue an apology on his websites and to send a signed letter of apology directly to Burns. Furthermore, the ADT awarded Burns compensation for the harm caused by the vilification and victimisation amounting to $6,500.
In summary, the ADT's decision in Burns v Sunol established that the publications by Sunol constituted unlawful vilification and victimisation. The court ordered Sunol to remove specific content from his websites, issue apologies, and pay compensation to Burns. This case underscores the importance of adhering to anti-discrimination laws and the potential consequences for those who breach these provisions.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this decision, the Respondent is to remove the following material from every website controlled by him:
(a) the statements reproduced as nos. 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 (first three sentences only) and 14 in paragraph [28] of the decision; and
(b) all material to the same or similar effect concerning homosexual men, lesbians or homosexuality.
2. The Respondent is to refrain from publishing the material described in Order 1 on any website, whether or not controlled by him.
3. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this decision, the Respondent is to post the following apology, attributed to him, on every website controlled by him: -
This apology is made pursuant to an order of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales (ADT) made on 28 November 2012.
On various dates between 26 February 2010 and 24 July 2011, I published statements on various websites concerning homosexuality and homosexual people.
On 28 November 2012, the ADT held that my statements amounted to unlawful homosexual vilification. The ADT found that they were capable, or had the effect, of inciting hatred or serious contempt of one or more homosexual people on the ground of their homosexuality. The ADT also found that my statements were not published reasonably and in good faith for purposes in the public interest.
I apologise for publishing these statements. I acknowledge that, although I have no issue with homosexual people or homosexuality, the words that I used vilified homosexuals in breach of the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. The aim of this Act is to promote tolerance, understanding and acceptance in the community. The Act sets limits on what can be said or done in public.
4. The Respondent is to pay to the Applicant the sum of $3,000 as compensation for the harm caused to him by the publication, amounting to homosexual vilification, of the statements reproduced as nos. 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 (first three sentences only) and 14 in paragraph [28] of this decision.
5. In addition to the amount stipulated in Order 4, the Respondent is to pay to the Applicant the sum of $3,500 as compensation for the harm caused to him by the publication, amounting to victimisation, of the statements reproduced as nos. 7 and 8 in paragraph [72] of this decision.
6. The Respondent is to forward a signed letter of apology, in the terms set out below, to the Applicant at the address set out below by ordinary post within 28 days of the date of these orders.
Mr Gary Burns
PO Box 77
PADDINGTON NSW 2021
Dear Mr Burns
The Equal Opportunity Division of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal, in a decision dated 28 November 2012 and entitled Burns v Sunol, has found me to be in breach of provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 which state that victimisation, as defined in those provisions, is unlawful.
I offer my apologies for that behaviour.
Yours faithfully
John Sunol.
7. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this decision, the Respondent is to remove from every website controlled by him the statements reproduced as nos. 7 and 8 in paragraph [72] 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.