Daily wrap
“This week Latham used [parliamentary privilege] to share the confidential medical information of Independent MP Alex Greenwich, which was presented to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal during a homosexual vilification and workplace sexual harassment claim brought by Greenwich against Latham.”
The presenter’s Federal Court win against the ABC over the expression of her political views is expected to encourage other employees to test the limits of the law.
Australians now have a new weapon in the fight against the non-consensual sharing of intimate images and deepfakes.
Like our newsletter?
Chances are, someone you know will too.
Editor’s picks
Paper, Scissors - Rock or Island? Do you want a rock, DJ - or an island? This week the panel discusses the difference between rocks and islands in international law and why it matters, with special reference to the South China Sea case and subsequent legal arguments about archipelagoes. Tamsin Phillipa Paige chairs a discussion featuring co-hosts Douglas Guilfoyle and Imogen Saunders and special guest Tim Stephens.
[90] In the absence of a single witness to his actions attesting to having felt disrespect, Mr Turner was dismissed because he did not embrace the delivery of an Acknowledgement of Country at a toolbox meeting and instead employed sarcasm when expressing his opinion that Acknowledgements of Countryare at risk of being overused.
[14] One of the offences here has a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. That alone should indicate how serious this matter is. An estimate of two hours for a sentence of that type, particularly given the complexities of this sentence, is completely wrong and should never have been given by either or both of the parties to this court for this sentence. This sentence should have been listed for at least three to four hours and probably a day. This is an ongoing problem in this Court and practitioners constantly give inaccurate estimates of sentences. It has a serious knock-on effect to others waiting for their sentences to be reached or to be given a sentence date, for which the time is being extended on a daily basis. It also has a serious impact on the workload of judges in this Court because, as it would also be well known to practitioners in this Court, any judge with a part-heard sentence will also be required to preside over trials whilst waiting for that sentence to be finalised.
[15] It also has an impact on offenders, like the one before me, and his family who come to Court with an expectation, albeit unrealistic, that they will know what the result of their sentence will be on the day the matters is listed. This must stop. I have been making these observations now frequently for at least 10 of the last 29 years I have been sitting as a District Court Judge. Parties must stop giving unrealistic estimates for sentences in particular and in particular in complicated sentences like the matter before me.
An update on the possible pecuniary penalty the ABC could face (ie a fine for breaching the Fair Work Act):
Antoinette Lattouf’s legal team calculate that the maximum penalty the court could award is approximately $460,000
— #Vaxatious Litigant 💉⚖️👨⚖️ (#@ExposingNV)
11:20 AM • Jun 25, 2025
Got feedback or suggestions? Shoot us a message [email protected]