Last Friday, the Federal Circuit Court handed down a decision dismissing claims made against three of the respondents in a discrimination case (the case will still continue against four other respondents). Normally, such a procedural ruling in the Federal Circuit Court would be more snooze-worthy than blog-worthy, but the case has involved considerable media attention, because the discrimination alleged was racial discrimination, and the case involves everybody’s favourite section of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), section 18C.
The case – Prior v QUT– included claims by the plaintiff (Prior) that the respondents had made racially motivated statements on social media that breached section 18C.
There has been an awful lot of nonsense written about this case, both before and since the judgment. Regrettably, it is not uncommon in the Australian media for an awful lot of nonsense to be written about legal cases. Usually, however, the nonsense emanates from plaintiffs (and their legal advisors). One of the unusual aspects of Prior is that the nonsense seems to have emanated mostly from certain of the respondents (and certain media organisations who have taken up the cudgels on their behalf).
Normally, respondents (and especially respondents who assert that they are the subject of unmeritorious claims) do not fight their battles in the media; rather, they put their heads down and get on with the business of getting the claims struck out. The tenor of the media coverage in this case rather suggests that certain of the respondents are more interested in stoking a cause célèbre than they are in snookering a cause of action.
Which has led to all the nonsense, some of the more egregious of which includes …
Read the full article by Angus Macinnis on the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law blog.
Angus Macinnis is a Sydney lawyer who tweets as @AequoEtBono and who has been acting in discrimination matters, both for complainants and respondents, for more than 15 years.