Independent MP Mark Latham calls for details of Sydney MP Alex Greenwich’s sex life

A lawyer for political firebrand Mark Latham has called for gay Sydney MP Alex Greenwich to reveal details of his sex life in court after a crushing $140,000 defamation loss.

Mr Greenwich successfully sued his political opponent for defamation in the Federal Court over a homophobic tweet in 2023 that crudely described a sex act.

Justice David O’Callaghan ruled in September that the tweet conveyed the defamatory meaning that Mr Greenwich “engaged in disgusting sexual activities” and it had caused “serious harm to his reputation”.

Mr Greenwich’s lawyer Matt Collins KC told the court the tweet had “unleashed an utterly hateful torrent of abuse and vitriol” on his client.

On Wednesday, he asked for legal costs and requested that Mr Latham be restrained from republishing the language or imputation it contained.

“If Mr Latham were to republish the imputation Your Honour found to be carried by the primary tweet, it would unleash a torrent of hate”, he said.

However, Mr Latham’s lawyer Guy Reynolds SC argued the injunction sought was too broad and would cover publications by his client that weren’t defamatory.

“There’s also the question of whether these allegations are true,” he said.

“Your Honour cannot restrain publications which are true.”

Mr Reynolds noted Mr Greenwich is an openly gay man who had not claimed Mr Latham’s description of his participation in the sex act was false.

“As the price of obtaining the injunction, he should be candid with the court and indicate – through his counsel is sufficient – if he’s engaged in the activity referred to in the tweet,” he said.

“Otherwise Your Honour will be enjoining the publication of material which hasn’t been alleged by him in his evidence to be false.”

Dr Collins pointed out Mr Greenwich had been defamed by the imputation, which was presumed to be false, and Mr Latham had not alleged it was true.

“He said this even though he knows nothing about Mr Greenwich’s personal life and he said it with malice,” Justice O’Callaghan told Mr Reynolds.

“Why shouldn’t I enjoin him from repeating that and the imputation that goes with it? That’s all that’s being asked for.”

Mr Reynolds responded that the injunction could impede Mr Latham’s ability to engage in political discussion and prevent him “from making a comment about another MP”.

Justice O’Callaghan said that, under the injunction, Mr Latham would be “free to say anything he wants about Mr Greenwich, except (the tweet) and the imputations carried by it”.

“(It’s) hard to imagine how anyone could have a debate on such matters,” he mused.

Mr Reynolds clarified his client wasn’t “threatening to republish” or “shaking his fist saying ‘I am absolutely determined to say this all over again’”.

“He is simply putting submissions that he does not wish to be subject to a permanent injunction from the court,” he said.

If Mr Latham were to republish the defamatory content, Mr Reynolds said Mr Greenwich would be able to return to the Federal Court to claim further damages for harm done.

Yet Dr Collins declared damages were “a very blunt remedy” when dealing with the “torrent of hatred” incited by Mr Latham’s defamatory tweet.

Justice O’Callaghan reserved his decision on the injunction until next year but ordered Mr Latham to pay more than $7000 in interest to Mr Greenwich.

Mr Latham has appealed Justice O’Callaghan’s finding that the tweet was defamatory.