In court documents,Mr Dutton argued Mr Bazzi’s tweet defamed him by wrongly suggesting he condoned rape and excused rape. Mr Dutton sought damages,including aggravated damages,on the basis of several factors including Mr Bazzi’s “extravagant language”.
Mr Bazzi sought to rely on the defences of honest opinion and fair comment on a matter of public interest.
In a judgment on Wednesday,Justice Richard White rejected these defences,finding the tweet defamed Mr Dutton by suggesting he excused rape.
“Mr Bazzi has not established the statutory defence of honest opinion or the common law defence of fair comment on a matter of public interest,” Justice White said. “[J]udgment should be entered for Mr Dutton in the sum of $35,000.”
Justice White said he accepted Mr Dutton was offended and distressed by the tweet,but the politician was not entitled to aggravated damages because there was “no suggestion” he had been affected “in his day-to-day political or ministerial activities,or in his relationships with other people”.
Loading
“Mr Bazzi’s description of Mr Dutton as a person who excuses rape was no doubt a serious defamation,particularly having regard to the Ministerial office held by Mr Dutton at the time,” Justice White said.
“It is understandable that,despite Mr Dutton being accustomed to bearing ‘the slings and arrows’ which are an incident of high political office,he found this statement of Mr Bazzi offensive and hurtful.
“However,a sense of perspective does have to be brought to the assessment of the seriousness of the defamation. It was not published in any mainstream media and was published to a relatively small number of people only.
“Mr Bazzi did remove the Tweet shortly after his receipt of Mr Dutton’s concerns letter.”
Justice White said the readers of Mr Bazzi’s “pungent assessment” are likely to have seen it as reflecting political partisanship,rather than the “measured assessment of a serious political commentator”.
Before the judgment was handed down,Mr Bazzi said whatever the outcome was,he was proud he stood by his principles.
Speaking after the judgment,Mr Bazzi said he was “very disappointed”.
“We will be taking time to consider our options,” he said in a post on Twitter. “Thank you for all of your support and solidarity. I ask that you could please respect my privacy at this time.”
The case will return to court in December to discuss costs.
Our Breaking News Alertwillnotify you of significant breaking news when it happens.Get it here.