FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| KELLY-COUNTRY v BEERS & ANOR | [2004] FMCA 336 |
| HUMAN RIGHTS – RACIAL VILIFICATION – Performance of comedy monologue by person purporting to be Aboriginal – whether performance reasonably likely to offend – whether done in good faith – whether artistic work. PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Application by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commission and acting Race Discrimination Commission to appear as amicus curiae pursuant to section 46PV of the HREOC Act – leave to appear granted. Racial Discrimination Act, ss.9; 18C; 18D Bropho v Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission [2004] FCAFC |
| Applicant: | JOHN MORRIS KELLY-COUNTRY |
| Respondent: | LOUIS BEERS |
| Intervener: | THE ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER SOCIAL JUSTICE COMMISSIONER |
| File No: | DZ 5 of 2003 |
| Delivered on: | 21 May 2004 |
| Delivered at: | Darwin |
| Hearing date: | 3 November 2003 |
| Judgment of: | Brown FM |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant in person: | Mr J Kelly-Country |
| The Respondent in person: | Mr L Beers |
| Counsel for the Intervener: | Ms K Ellison |
| Solicitors for the Intervener: | Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission |
ORDERS
That the application filed on the 15th of April, 2003 is dismissed.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT DARWIN |
DZ 5 of 2003
| JOHN MORRIS KELLY-COUNTRY |
Applicant
And
| LOUIS BEERS |
Respondent
And
| ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER SOCIAL JUSTICE COMMISSIONER |
Intervenor
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
These proceedings concern the interpretation and application of Part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act (hereinafter referred to as the RDA). This part of the RDA was inserted by the Racial Hatred Act 1995 and prohibits offensive behaviour involving the hatred of other people on the grounds of their race, colour or national or ethnic origins.
The applicant in the proceedings is JOHN MORRIS KELLY-COUNTRY. He describes himself as an Aboriginal Activist. The respondent to the proceedings is LOUIS BEERS. He is a professional comedian, who performs under the stage name “King Billy Cokebottle”. In the guise of King Billy Cokebottle, Mr Beers purports to be an Aboriginal person and performs a comedy monologue. Mr Beers himself is not Aboriginal. Some of Mr Beers’ performances, as King Billy Cokebottle, have been recorded on both video tape and audio tape. The tapes are available for purchase by members of the public.
Mr Kelly-Country has purchased two of these tapes. The first is an audio cassette entitled “King Billy Cokebottle – The Dirty Dozen”. The second is a video cassette…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Kelly-Country v Beers and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2004] FMCA 336
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the application met the necessary criteria and conditions for it to be considered and granted, and if there were any valid grounds for Beers to oppose the application. The court needed to examine the merits of the application, the evidence presented by both parties, and any relevant legal principles or precedents that could apply to the case.
After considering the arguments and evidence from both parties, the court found that the application did not meet the necessary criteria for it to be granted. The court held that the application was not supported by sufficient evidence and did not provide a valid basis for the relief sought by Kelly-Country. Consequently, the court dismissed the application filed on April 15, 2003. The court did not find it necessary to make any further orders beyond dismissing the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
That the application filed on the 15th of April, 2003 is dismissed.
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.