Kelly-Country v Beers

Link copied
Case Copied 71 min read

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
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth), ss.46PO; 46PH; 46PV
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s.13 (1); 15AA; 15AB
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for Freedom of Expression and Association

Bropho v Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission [2004] FCAFC
Bryl v Nowra, Unreported, HREOC, Commissioner Johnston, 21 June 1999
Jones v Scully [2002] FCA 1080
McGlade v Lightfoot [2002] FCA 1457
Creek v Cairns Post Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1007
Jones v Toben [2002] FCA 1150
Kazak v John Fairfax Publications Limited [2000] NSWADT 77
Western Aboriginal Legal Service Ltd v Jones [2000] MSWADT 102

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

  1. 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

  1. 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. 

  2. 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. 

  3. 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…

CaseChat AU logo

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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2004] FMCA 336
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kelly-Country versus Beers involved a dispute between two parties, Kelly-Country and Beers, which was heard in a court in Australia. The nature of the dispute was centred on an application filed by Kelly-Country, seeking certain relief against Beers. This application was lodged on April 15, 2003. The court was tasked with determining the validity and merits of this application and whether it should be granted or dismissed.

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.