A group of pro-Israel complainants involved in the legal battle between Antoinette Lattouf and the ABC are seeking contempt of court proceedings against The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) and The Age, alleging the mastheads breached a Federal Court suppression order.
According to The Sydney Morning Herald, the order—made on 3 February by Justice Darryl Rangiah during Lattouf’s ongoing unlawful termination suit against the ABC—suppresses for ten years the “names, identities, contact details and addresses of persons who made complaints” about Lattouf’s employment.
Justice Rangiah ruled it was “necessary to protect the safety of persons” and warned of a “substantial risk” that complainants “will face, at least, vilification and harassment” if publicly identified.
Although the suppression request came from nine individuals, the final order was not limited to protecting just those complainants, broadening its application.
Now, lawyers for individuals covered by that order allege that SMH editor Bevan Shields, The Age editor Patrick Elligett, two in-house lawyers, two journalists, and the papers’ publishing companies have violated the suppression conditions.
At a Federal Court preliminary hearing on Wednesday, barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC said her clients were seeking “only one order”—a referral under the Federal Court Rules to the principal registrar to consider whether contempt proceedings should be initiated.
Tom Blackburn SC, representing the SMH and The Age, said the matter was “of the utmost seriousness” and involved allegations against court officers. “It’s a procedure which is criminal in nature,” he said, arguing that “there cannot be a successful prosecution unless the contempts are wilful and contumacious.”
Blackburn stressed that one of the accused lawyers “was on leave at the time all this happened,” and reiterated that the defence team needs precise details before it can respond. “Let me say this: if the view is taken, when we know exactly what these contempts are supposed to be, that apologies should be made, then those apologies will be made. But it’s simply too early for us to determine that without proper information about the charges.”
However, Chrysanthou said her legal team had sent “over half a dozen letters” to the publications alleging breaches, but received “no substantive response.” She criticised the media companies’ “unapologetic and unrepentant manner,” stating: “Regrettably, from my clients’ perspective, we had no choice but to bring this application.”
Blackburn countered that it was premature to expect an apology without knowing the “criminal charges” being levelled. “We should have those particulars as a matter of fairness,” he said.
The issue of whether contempt has occurred hinges not only on identifying complainants specifically, but also whether any individual who falls under the protected class has been identified, according to Chrysanthou.
Justice Rangiah acknowledged the need for clarity. “I think there’s a benefit for all the parties in you articulating in writing exactly what are the allegations that you make,” he told Chrysanthou. “Ultimately, I’m going to have to decide whether or not to direct the registrar to start a proceeding for punishment for the alleged contempt.”
In December 2023, journalist Antoinette Lattouf was dismissed from her role as a fill-in host on ABC Radio Sydney after sharing a Human Rights Watch report on social media concerning the Israel-Gaza conflict.
The ABC contended that this action breached its editorial policies. However, Lattouf argued that her post was factual and within guidelines, asserting that her termination was influenced by coordinated pressure from pro-Israel lobbyists, including a group called Lawyers for Israel, who had lobbied ABC executives for her removal.
The matter will return to court on June 19.
Lattouf will appear on stage at Cairns Crocodiles later this month. Get your tickets now!
