Photographed at Sydney Muslim riots, said a filmmaker should be beheaded and awarded $100,000 because a newspaper published his photo
Monday, 08 February 2016
Here is the $100,000 man, Hamza Sheikh. He's $100,000 richer because the Daily Telegraph published his photo in connection with the Sydney Muslim riots - and a Sydney jury decided that identifying him as taking part in the riots had hurt his reputation.
Here's what the man himself thinks.
Cheikho v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 4) [2016] NSWSC 29 (5 February 2016)
Last Updated: 5 February 2016
|
Supreme Court New South Wales
|
| Case Name: | Cheikho v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 4) |
| Medium Neutral Citation: | [2016] NSWSC 29 |
| Hearing Date(s): | 21, 22, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30 September;1, 2, 7 October 2015. |
| Date of Orders: | 5 February 2016 |
| Decision Date: | 5 February 2016 |
| Jurisdiction: | Common Law |
| Before: | McCallum J |
| Decision: | Verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $100,000 |
| Catchwords: | DEFAMATION - defences - defence of qualified privilege at common law - where Commissioner of police agreed with editor of major newspaper that it would be useful to have photographs of persons involved in a protest published in the newspaper to assist police to identify those persons - whether article including photographs was published on an occasion of qualified privilege DEFAMATION - damages - defamatory imputation that plaintiff as one of an angry mob took part in a riot - whether damages mitigated by truth of imputation that plaintiff participated in a violent protest - whether damages mitigated by other conduct in evidence at the trial - assessment of damages DEFAMATION - defences - defence of contextual truth - whether a plaintiff's imputation proved substantially true at trial must be available to be relied upon by a defendant as a contextual imputation - where no defence of contextual truth pleaded prior to commencement of trial PROCEDURE - mode of trial - where defendant elected to have action for defamation tried by jury - application by plaintiff for a jury of twelve - rejection of assumption that jurors will not give Muslims a fair trial - rejection of assumption that risk of prejudice or bigotry is diluted in a larger group of jurors |
| Legislation Cited: | Defamation Act 2004 (NSW) Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) Jury Act 1977 (NSW) Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW) Summary Offences Regulation 2000 (NSW) |
| Cases Cited: | |
| Category: | Principal judgment |
| Parties: | Wisam Haddad (Plaintiff) Nationwide News Pty Ltd (Defendant) |
| Representation: | Counsel: T Blackburn SC with L Barnett (Plaintiff) T Molomby SC with R Rasmussen (Defendant) Solicitors: Lighthouse Law Group Pty Ltd (Plaintiff) Ashurst Australia Lawyers (Defendant) |
| File Number(s): | 2013/280743 |
| Publication Restriction: | None |
JUDGMENT
- HER HONOUR: Mr Hamza Cheikho brought proceedings for defamation in respect of four articles published in The Daily Telegraph. The case was tried with a jury commencing on 21 September 2015 and continuing over eight days. On the ninth day, the jury returned with answers to the questions posed for their determination. The effect of the jury’s answers was that, subject to one further issue (to be determined by the Court rather than the jury), Mr Cheikho was successful in respect of one of the four articles sued on.
- The articles related to a protest in the central business district of Sydney in response to the release of a video on YouTube called "Innocence of Muslims". The video was perceived to ridicule the Prophet of Islam and was met with outrage in Muslim communities. The Sydney protest was one of a number of protests throughout the world. Some protesters in Sydney carried placards calling for the beheading of the person who made the video. During the protest, violence erupted between some protesters and police. Unsurprisingly, aspects of those events shocked the Australian community and attracted a great deal of media attention.
- The article in respect of which Mr Cheikho was successful was the first matter complained of, an article entitled “Faces of Rage” published on the front page of the newspaper on 18 September 2012 (a Tuesday). The article occupied almost the whole of the page and consisted mainly of 15 photographs of young men who participated in the protest. The jury found that the article conveyed the single imputation specified by Mr Cheikho, “that as one of an angry mob he took part in a riot”. The jury found that that imputation was defamatory and that the newspaper had failed to establish the defence of truth.
- As to the second matter complained of, the jury found that the article did not convey either of the two imputations specified by Mr Cheikho.
- As to the third matter complained of, the jury found that the article conveyed one of three imputations specified by Mr Cheikho. The imputation found conveyed was “that the plaintiff helped organise a riot”. The jury found that that imputation was defamatory and that the defendant had failed to establish the defence of truth. However, the jury found that the defendant had established the defence of honest opinion in respect of that article.
- As to the fourth matter complained of, the jury found that the article conveyed one of four imputations specified by Mr Cheikho. The imputation found conveyed was “that the plaintiff took part in a violent protest”. The jury found that that imputation was defamatory but that the defendant had established the defence of truth to that imputation. In the case of that article, the jury found that the defendant had not established the defence of honest opinion.
- The issue which remains to be determined in respect of the newspaper’s liability for the first matter complained of is the defence of qualified privilege at common law. The question whether the article was published on an occasion of qualified privilege at common law is one for the Court, not the jury. The determination of the amount of damages (if any) to be awarded is also a task for the Court rather than the jury: see s 22(3) of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW).
- This judgment determines those issues. For the reasons set out below (commencing at [55]), I have determined that the defence of qualified privilege at common law pleaded in respect of the first matter complained of must fail and that Mr Cheikho should be awarded damages in the sum of $100,000.
You can read the rest of this insight into what Australia has become here.
And remember, it's never too young to teach a child how to behead someone who says something you don't like.
And to that freak of a dam who produced tomorrow's terrorist click here for a bit of a reality check.
To everyone else, the link below will take you to one of the most sickening and horrific scenes you are ever likely to witness. To many Muslims, it's another day in the footsteps of the Prophet. And to our courts, it's a ticket for a Division One payout to publish and identify someone who riots in favour of what you are about to see.
HORRIFIC GRAPHIC CONTENT WARNING