Antoinette Lattouf v ABC hearing live: unrefuted News Corp article evidence the ABC ‘sacked’ reporter, court hears
Article in The Australian was evidence the ABC had indeed ‘sacked’ Lattouf, barrister says
Philip Boncardo, another barrister for Lattouf, is addressing a key issue in the case: whether the journalist was terminated from her role at the ABC.
The ABC deny she was terminated from her five-day contract.
He said the key evidence they would rely upon was the meeting in which Lattouf was told “to collect her things and leave”.
She was not told she was still employed.
She was not told she would be paid for Thursday and Friday.
She did not perform any more work … that, we clearly say, is a termination of employment.
Boncardo said that while the meeting was the key evidence Lattouf relied upon to refute the “assertion” from the ABC that the relationship “continued”, there were other factors.
One of these, he said, was that an article was published in The Australian shortly after Lattouf left the ABC, in which it was described she had been “sacked”.
“What does the ABC do in response? Absolutely nothing,” Boncardo said.
Closing submissions for Lattouf continue.
Key events
That’s it for today, thanks for reading
Let’s go through some of the key points raised during the hearing, which almost entirely focused on closing oral submissions from Antoinette Lattouf’s lawyers:
-
Lattouf’s lawyers argue she was dismissed not only because of her opinion about the war in Gaza, but because of her Lebanese heritage;
-
Her lawyers also say it is clear she was terminated from the ABC, which the broadcaster has denied;
-
The key evidence regarding her termination, the lawyers say, is a meeting in which was told to “collect her things and leave” and was not told she was still employed. But they also rely on the fact the broadcaster did not refute an article in The Australian saying she had been sacked;
-
Justice Darryl Rangiah said he planned to ask lawyers for the ABC “about the relevance of the apparent leaking of the information about Ms Lattouf’s case to The Australian, and whether that factors in to questions of compensation”;
-
Oshie Fagir, for Lattouf described the ABC content chief, Chris Oliver-Taylor, as a witness of “no credit”, saying that there was no material that supported his evidence that Lattouf was given a direction not to post on social media; and
-
the ABC failed in a bid to confirm how many Instagram followers Lattouf had gained since leaving the broadcaster.
Thanks again for reading, and enjoy the rest of your evening.
Judge to ask ABC whether apparent leak to The Australian is relevant to compensation
Justice Darryl Rangiah plans to ask lawyers for the ABC whether the apparent leaking of a story regarding Antoinette Lattouf’s departure from the broadcaster to The Australian should be considered when weighing possible compensation to the journalist.
Rangiah ended Thursday’s hearing by saying he planned to ask Ian Neil SC, for the ABC, “about the relevance of the apparent leaking of the information about Ms Lattouf’s case to The Australian, and whether that factors in to questions of compensation”.
The hearing has been adjourned until Friday morning, when lawyers for Lattouf are expected to finish their closing submissions, followed by the ABC.
Article in The Australian was evidence the ABC had indeed ‘sacked’ Lattouf, barrister says
Philip Boncardo, another barrister for Lattouf, is addressing a key issue in the case: whether the journalist was terminated from her role at the ABC.
The ABC deny she was terminated from her five-day contract.
He said the key evidence they would rely upon was the meeting in which Lattouf was told “to collect her things and leave”.
She was not told she was still employed.
She was not told she would be paid for Thursday and Friday.
She did not perform any more work … that, we clearly say, is a termination of employment.
Boncardo said that while the meeting was the key evidence Lattouf relied upon to refute the “assertion” from the ABC that the relationship “continued”, there were other factors.
One of these, he said, was that an article was published in The Australian shortly after Lattouf left the ABC, in which it was described she had been “sacked”.
“What does the ABC do in response? Absolutely nothing,” Boncardo said.
Closing submissions for Lattouf continue.
Social media post was ‘pretext’ for Lattouf’s ‘utterly abnormal’ removal, Fagir says
Amanda Meade
Removing Lattouf for the Human Rights Watch post on social media was a “pretext” and “utterly abnormal”, Fagir argues in his closing submission.
Mr Oliver-Taylor latched on to the post as a pretext to deliver that which he knew the managing director and the chair wanted.
Fagir says the pressure was coming from Buttrose who was “hammering” him with emails and Anderson who was “demanding assurances that a situation like this never arises again”.
“And he uses [the post] as a pretext to deliver what he wanted and what the organisation want too. And that is why the reasoning in relation to the direction and the potential breach of policy makes absolutely no sense.”
Amanda Meade
Key decision-makers in Lattouf’s removal laid out in court
David Anderson’s “deep unhappiness” about the hiring of Lattouf, and his “frequent expressions of hostility” towards her opinions were influential in Chris Oliver-Taylor’s decision to sack her, Fagir tells the court.
They were all aspects of the influence – the pressure – that was brought to bear on Mr Oliver Taylor, and which were relevant to his ultimate decision.
Fagir is taking Justice Rangiah to the people who played a part in the removal of Lattouf.
Fagir says although Ita Buttrose was not a decision-maker she was influential, especially when she started to forward all the complaint emails about Lattouf to Oliver-Taylor.
“We say that Mr Anderson and Mr Oliver-Taylor were decision-makers in the conventional sense that they exercised authority to dismiss Ms Lattouf, and that Ms Buttrose and Mr Latimer were decision-makers in the broader sense … being people who materially influenced the decision to dismiss,” Fagir says.
Lattouf dismissed because of her race: Fagir
Antoinette Lattouf was dismissed by the ABC not only for her political beliefs but because she was Lebanese, her barrister says.
Oshie Fagir, continuing his closing submissions, said:
Ms Lattouf was removed from air … not only [because] she held and manifested particular views, but that she did so in circumstances where she herself was of Lebanese heritage. We absolutely maintain and urge the court to find that Ms Lattouf’s race was a reason for her dismissal.
Fagir said the material he relied upon was “explicit” in relation to the “hostility” about her political opinion, but “not as clear in relation to race”.
But he said the ABC had the onus to “explain this utterly abnormal exercise and the reasons for it”.
Justice Darryl Rangiah asked what would be relied upon in relation to race, but Fagir again responded that it was for the ABC to prove it had not been a factor.
“It’s not my client’s task to positively demonstrate that race was a factor, it’s for the ABC to exclude it,” Fagir said.
His closing submissions continue.
The difference between holding and expressing an opinion
We’re fairly deep in case law here about the difference, and the significance of the difference, between holding and expressing an opinion.
Fagir is taking Rangiah through previous cases that he says shows legally there is no difference.
Rangiah says the reason he is pressing Fagir on the distinction is that there is a clear disconnect between the ABC and Lattouf on the issue.
Rangiah said:
Where this point might arise conceivably is, if I rejected or did not accept the evidence of Mr Oliver-Taylor for his reasons for terminating the employment of your client, but nevertheless accepted his evidence that he was not concerned about whether your client held political opinions, but only the fact she expressed those views … in that case I might have to decide whether first, as a matter of construction, on your argument, there’s no distinction between the two, that is to express a political opinion is to hold it.
The second issue … is that if there is a distinction between the two, then does your client fail because the pleading only relies on her holding a political opinion, rather than expressing a political opinion.
I’ve spent some time on this because I do think it’s a point in which the parties are firmly divided, and I do think that’s important.
Fagir said “it is conceivable that permutation might arise, obviously we would urge a different set of findings”.
He went on to clarify that his submission was not quite that to express an opinion is to hold it, it is that to dismiss someone based on expressing an opinion is to dismiss based on the holding of that opinion.
His closing submissions continue.
Hearing resumes
Oshie Fagir, for Lattouf, has continued his oral closing submissions.
And that’s lunch
The hearing has ended for lunch, and will resume at 2.15pm.
Judge urged to dismiss some evidence from David Anderson and other ABC witnesses
Fagir has emphasised that Lattouf’s case is not only that she was terminated because she held an opinion about the war in Gaza, but that it was expressed.
He says, however, that “our primary contention … is that it was the holding of the opinion was the issue”.
The onus was on the ABC to prove otherwise, he argues.
Just before lunch, Fagir also made clear that Rangiah should dismiss evidence from people at the ABC – including the managing director, David Anderson – that they did not know about Lattouf’s opinion.
“Some of them claimed, laughably, not to know what the opinion was,” he said.
Fagir said expressing an opinion was merely a “manifestation” of that opinion.
But Rangiah said it would be critical to the case to determine whether, under the relevant law, the expressing of a political opinion was indeed different from merely holding that view.
Judge questions comparing treatment of Lattouf to other ABC employees
Fagir runs through a series of people at the ABC who also expressed opinions while employed by the broadcaster, including Laura Tingle and Patricia Karvelas, who were not dismissed.
He said the way the ABC considered Lattouf shows that it was the nature of her opinions – not that she had expressed them – that was the main concern.
The fact she is labelled an advocate or an activist … betrays a starting point that is hostile to those views.
Rangiah queries this, saying he’s “not sure how far that gets you, comparing the ABCs dealings with Ms Lattouf and others”.
The judge goes on to say that the evidence was that the ABC was receiving a series of complaints about Lattouf that needed to be dealt with “immediately”.
Fagir responded that the former ABC chair Ita Buttrose and the managing director, David Anderson, had both given evidence that dealing with complaints was “a day in the life of the ABC” and that there was nothing unusual about this campaign.
But he also added that “it is really for the ABC to explain … that series of events did not occur because of her opinion”.
Fagir’s closing submissions continue.
Lattouf dismissed solely for her opinion, barrister says
Fagir continues his closing submissions by saying it is clear the ABC dismissed Lattouf simply because of her opinions.
He says Justice Darryl Rangiah should ignore any submission from the ABC to the contrary:
The various and many ways – imprecise references to policies, directions, unwritten concerns about impartiality, unwritten expectations of impartiality, reputational concerns, concerns about an audiences redaction – are all by the by.
It takes the matter nowhere for an employer to say [for example] that ‘I will not employee anyone over the age of 55, and I am dismissing this person when they turn 55 not because of their age, but because of this policy
The issue in relation to Ms Lattouf was the matter of her political opinions.
The ABC, in its defence, in various points, describes her opinions as contentious, or controverial
Fagir also described the observations of senior executives at the ABC about Lattouf’s opinions as overly simplistic.
“One might expect a bit more nuance in relation to that matter,” he said.
ABC content chief a witness of ‘no credit’, Fagir says
Oshie Fagir, for Lattouf, has continued his submission that there was no direction given to his client not to post on social media while she was employed by the ABC.
He has described the ABC content chief, Chris Oliver-Taylor, as a witness of “no credit”, saying that there was no material that supported his evidence that Lattouf was given a direction.
He said that the fact Oliver-Taylor insisted there was such a direction was “a matter that weighs heavily against Mr Oliver-Taylor’s credit”.
Fagir’s oral closing submissions continue.
