Trad v Jones (No 7)

Case [2014] NSWCATAD 225

NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Trad v Jones (No 7) [2014] NSWCATAD 225
Hearing dates:14 May 2014, 11 August 2014 and 21 August 2014
Decision date: 19 December 2014
Jurisdiction:Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: N Hennessy LCM, Deputy President
M Bolt, General Member
Dr J Schneeweiss, General Member
Decision:

1. The applicant's complaint of racial vilification against the first respondent in relation to the Schedule A broadcast is substantiated.

2. The applicant's complaint of racial vilification against the second respondent in relation to the Schedule A broadcast is substantiated.

3. The first and second respondents are to pay the applicant damages of $10,000.

4. If it has not already done so, the second respondent is to undertake a critical review of its 2005 programs and policies on the prevention of racial vilification with a view to developing and implementing revised programs and policies aimed at eliminating unlawful racial vilification.

5. The second respondent is to report to the Tribunal and Mr Trad within 6 months of the date of these reasons on the outcome of the review previously undertaken in compliance with the relevant order made by the Tribunal or the Appeal Panel or of the outcome of the review undertaken in compliance with order 4.

6. The Respondents are to pay the Applicant's costs thrown away by the adjournment of the hearing on 14 May 2014 such costs to be $15,000 or some other amount agreed between the parties. If the amount is not agreed, costs are to be assessed on a basis set out in Division 11 of Part 3.2 of the Legal Profession Act 2004.

7. The Respondents' application for costs thrown away by the adjournment of the hearing on 14 May 2014 is refused.

Directions

1. Within 28 days of this decision each party is to file and serve any application for costs.

2. Within a further 14 days each party is to file and serve a response to any costs application.

3. Subject to considering any objection by either party, any application for costs is to be determined 'on the papers'.

Catchwords: CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL -racial vilification - broadcast by Alan Jones on Radio 2GB relating to Lebanese men - identification of audience - perception of audience -capacity of public act to incite ordinary member of that audience to hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule of a person - meaning and applicability of exceptions - relief - costs
Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (NSW)
Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth)
Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)
Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (Vic)
Cases Cited: Bropho v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [2004] FCAFC 16
Catch the Fires Ministries Inc v Islamic Council of Victoria Inc [2005] VSCA 284; (2006) 15 VR 207
Eatock v Bolt (2011) 179 FCR 261
Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298
Jones…

Continue reading Trad v Jones (No 7)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Trad v Jones (No 7) [2014] NSWCATAD 225
Case
[2014] NSWCATAD 225
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Trad v Jones (No 7) involved the complainant, Trad, bringing a claim of racial vilification against two respondents, Alan Jones and 2GB, relating to comments made by Jones on his radio broadcast. The case was heard in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Trad argued that the broadcast, which involved derogatory remarks about Lebanese men, amounted to racial vilification under the Anti-Discrimination Act. The central legal issues revolved around whether the broadcast was a public act that could incite ordinary members of the audience to hatred, serious contempt, or severe ridicule, and if so, whether any exceptions applied to exempt the act from being considered vilification.

The Tribunal found that the broadcast did constitute racial vilification. It concluded that the comments made by Jones were directed towards a group identifiable by their Lebanese heritage, and that the broadcast could incite hatred, contempt, or severe ridicule in ordinary members of the audience who were aware of the Lebanese heritage of the targeted individuals. The Tribunal also determined that none of the exceptions to vilification applied to the case. The Tribunal further found that the second respondent, 2GB, had not taken sufficient steps to prevent racial vilification within its programs and policies. This led to the Tribunal ordering a critical review of 2GB’s policies and mandating a report back on any changes implemented.

In its decision, the Tribunal substantiated both Trad's complaints against Jones and 2GB, awarding Trad damages of $10,000. Additionally, 2GB was ordered to review and revise its programs and policies to prevent racial vilification. The Tribunal also ordered the respondents to pay Trad's costs incurred up to the adjournment of the hearing, amounting to $15,000, or an agreed sum, with costs to be assessed if no agreement was reached. The respondents' application for costs was dismissed. Further directions were issued for the parties to file and respond to any costs applications within specified timeframes, with any objections to be considered by the Tribunal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant's complaint of racial vilification against the first respondent in relation to the Schedule A broadcast is substantiated.

2. The applicant's complaint of racial vilification against the second respondent in relation to the Schedule A broadcast is substantiated.

3. The first and second respondents are to pay the applicant damages of $10,000.

4. If it has not already done so, the second respondent is to undertake a critical review of its 2005 programs and policies on the prevention of racial vilification with a view to developing and implementing revised programs and policies aimed at eliminating unlawful racial vilification.

5. The second respondent is to report to the Tribunal and Mr Trad within 6 months of the date of these reasons on the outcome of the review previously undertaken in compliance with the relevant order made by the Tribunal or the Appeal Panel or of the outcome of the review undertaken in compliance with order 4.

6. The Respondents are to pay the Applicant's costs thrown away by the adjournment of the hearing on 14 May 2014 such costs to be $15,000 or some other amount agreed between the parties. If the amount is not agreed, costs are to be assessed on a basis set out in Division 11 of Part 3.2 of the Legal Profession Act 2004.

7. The Respondents' application for costs thrown away by the adjournment of the hearing on 14 May 2014 is refused.

Directions

1. Within 28 days of this decision each party is to file and serve any application for costs.

2. Within a further 14 days each party is to file and serve a response to any costs application.

3. Subject to considering any objection by either party, any application for costs is to be determined 'on the papers'.

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.