Court rejects Leyonhjelm’s appeal over Hanson-Young defamation

Source

Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young has defeated a legal bid by former senator David Leyonhjelm to overturn a court decision ordering him to pay $120,000 in damages for defaming her in a series of interviews after his “stop shagging men” outburst in Parliament.

In a decision on Wednesday, a two-to-one majority of the Full Court of the Federal Court rejected an appeal by Mr Leyonhjelm, a former Liberal Democratic Party senator, and ordered him to pay Senator Hanson-Young’s legal costs.

Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (centre) and her barrister, Sue Chrysanthou SC (left) outside court.

Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (centre) and her barrister, Sue Chrysanthou SC (left) outside court.Credit:AAP/Joel Carrett

Justice Michael Wigney, who was in the majority, described the case as arising out of “an unedifying episode in the relatively brief and at times controversial political life” of Mr Leyonhjelm, who seized an opportunity for “a bit of mud-slinging or muck-raking”.

“That attack was manifestly crass, offensive and obviously sexist. It employed boys’-own locker-room gossip and innuendo – of the most dubious provenance – to shame, ridicule and embarrass Senator Hanson-Young before the public at large,” he said.

In November 2019, Justice Richard White found Mr Leyonhjelm acted with malice and intended to publicly shame Senator Hanson-Young after a heated Senate debate in June 2018. The Greens senator said after the original decision she would donate the “substantial damages” to charity.

Senator Hanson-Young did not sue over comments made in Parliament, which are protected by parliamentary privilege, but over Mr Leyonhjelm’s statements in a press release and a series of interviews after the debate about weapons importation and violence against women, during which he called from the sidelines that she should “stop shagging men”

Mr Leyonhjelm told the media, including the ABC’s 7.30 program, Sky News and Melbourne radio station 3AW, that his comment was in response to an alleged claim by Senator Hanson-Young during the debate that “all men are rapists”.

“If you think they’re all rapists, why would you shag them?” he said.

Senator Hanson-Young claimed Mr Leyonhjelm defamed her by suggesting she made the “absurd” comment that “all men are rapists”. Justice White found she did not make this claim.

She also claimed he branded her a “hypocrite”, in that she “claimed that all men are rapists but nevertheless had sexual relations with them”; and a “misandrist, in that she publicly claimed that all men are rapists”.

Justice White found each of those defamatory imputations was conveyed by Mr Leyonhjelm, and he had not established a defence of truth or qualified privilege.

Mr Leyonhjelm’s lawyers argued the case amounted to a breach of parliamentary privilege because it required an examination of words spoken by Senator Hanson-Young in the chamber, even though she sued only over comments outside Parliament. Justice White rejected that argument.

All three appeal judges - Justice Steven Rares, Justice Wigney, and Justice Wendy Abraham - rejected an appeal ground relating to the parliamentary privilege issue.

The majority, Justice Wigney and Justice Abraham, also rejected Mr Leyonhjelm’s argument that he was protected by the defence of qualified privilege, which relates to publications of public interest where a publisher acted reasonably.

Catch all the day’s breaking news

At the end of each day, we’ll send you the most important breaking news headlines, evening entertainment ideas and a long read to enjoy.  Sign up here.