Key events
What we learned, Wednesday 12 February
The Antoinette Lattouf v ABC case has wrapped up within the two additional days allocated which must be a relief to everyone involved.
Legal teams for Lattouf and the ABC now have just nine business days to write their closing submissions for Justice Rangiah.
Today we heard from Ben Latimer, director of audio, who is responsible for all the radio stations, podcasts and 500 staff.
Latimer repeatedly asked Fagir to repeat his questions, as Lattouf’s barrister put increasingly complex propositions to him.
He admitted he wasn’t an expert in the ABC’s various rules and regulations as he had only been at the broadcaster for 18 months, and at the relevant time that period was only three months.
Fagir tried, with little success, to bring ABC broadcaster Patricia Karvelas into the frame, asking both Latimer and Simon Melkman if her social media activity breached guidelines.
They both declined to answer.
Earlier Elizabeth Green, Lattouf’s line manager, appeared to back up much of Lattouf’s evidence, including that she may have told Lattouf not to post anything “controversial” or “unbalanced” but that she could post facts from “reputable sources”.
Thanks for following along and we’ll see you on 27 February.
Closing submissions to be heard at the end of February
Justice Darryl Rangiah gives the parties some instructions on how he would like them to submit their closing arguments and in what order, and he has adjourned the case until 27 and 28 February.
Acknowledging the complexity of the case, he says:
Because of the number of emails and number of moving actors, it is a little difficult to keep track of who said what, when and in what email.
So what I would appreciate is a narrative of the relevant events … preferably with the emails, the relevant emails (and) the relevant extracts actually set out in the written submission, so that I don’t have to find them elsewhere.
Lattouf’s ‘previous activity on social media, not the opinions themselves’ was problematic, court hears
Melkman agrees he did not object to management’s decision to remove Lattouf because he had, in Fagir’s words, “come to a view that Ms Lattouf may have breached personal use of social media guidelines”.
However, he disagrees with the suggestion from Fagir that Lattouf’s opinions on the conduct of the state of Israel played a part in that view.
“I would say it was her previous activity on social media, not the opinions themselves, per se,” he says.
“I was referring to her previous social media activity, which included expression of opinions on these matters.”
And that brings Melkman’s cross-examination to a close.
The ABC’s barrister, Ian Neil SC, closes by asking Melkman to identify the lines in the ABC code of conduct which refer to impartiality.
“There are two lines in here which refer to impartiality,” Melkman points out.
“I was thinking of both of those, but most precisely the first is … ensure activities, including commercial, personal and political relationships, do not constitute an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest”.
Melkman has completed his evidence.
Human Rights Watch post ‘absolutely a matter of controversy’, court hears
Melkman is asked by Fagir whether the Human Rights Watch post by Lattouf was controversial.
I would say that the Human Rights Watch allegation that starvation was being used as a tool of war was absolutely a matter of controversy.
It was denied by Israel for instance. It was a matter of controversy absolutely.
Fagir: “Because Israel denied it, Ms Lattouf couldn’t post it?”
Melkman: “That’s absolutely not what I’m saying.”
Fagir’s line of questioning is objected to by the ABC and Melkman is asked to leave the courtroom.
Karvelas social media posts on Australia Day, Roe v Wade and Uluru statement shown in court
Melkman says the ABC has policies which apply to private conduct and use of social media but there isn’t a broad overarching rule.
Melkman is shown a number of posts by Patricia Karvelas on X, formerly Twitter, about various issues, including Australia Day, Roe v Wade and the Uluru statement, and Fagir asks him if these posts breach any standards.
Melkman declines to answer on the grounds that the Karvelas posts are out of context and he can’t assess them properly.
He is then asked how he assessed Lattouf’s posts:
Broadly, I would characterise them as critical of the conduct of the state of Israel in with regard to the conflict, broadly supportive of the Palestinian cause.
Simon Melkman begins giving evidence
Simon Melkman, a senior editorial adviser for the ABC, has entered the witness box. He is the final witness.
At the relevant time Lattouf was dismissed, Melkman was the ABC’s acting editorial director and gave advice on her social media use before she was employed by the ABC.
Fagir: “It’s fair to say that you carefully scrutinised Ms Lattouf’s social media activity in the week beginning of the 18 of December 2023?
Melkman: Yes.
Melkman agrees that if a staff member breached the personal use of social media policies the usual process was to refer it to the people and culture department in consultation with the person’s line manager.
‘Quite specific details’ in The Australian’s article
Latimer is then shown the article in The Australian which was published shortly after Lattouf was sacked.
Fagir says the article includes “some quite specific details”.
The details include: that management was on Wednesday night scrambling to find a replacement for Lattouf; that the chair and the managing director had received many complaints about Lattouf; that she was sacked just hours after finishing a program; that Latimer is the ABC’s head of audio and oversees the radio arm, but that it was Steve Ahern who appointed Lattouf.
Fagir asks:
Do you know how The Australian came to be privy to this information?
Latimer says he doesn’t know.
Justice Darryl Rangiah then asks if there was an investigation into a possible leak and if such a leak would breach any rules, and Latimer says he doesn’t know.
Latimer has finished his evidence and has now been excused.
Hearing resumes
The hearing has resumed and Latimer is back in the witness box to finish his evidence.
Latimer says he has never been asked to review journalist Patricia Karvelas’s social media accounts.
Fagir asks if the real reason the ABC scrutinised Lattouf’s social media so closely – and ultimately removed her – was because she was sympathetic to the human rights of the Palestinian people and critical of conduct of the state of Israel in relation to the Gaza conflict.
“That is not true,” Latimer said.
Court adjourns for lunch
Latimer agrees that the ABC’s social media policies are separate from the editorial policies.
He earlier identified that the concern with Lattouf’s post was whether she had been impartial, which he said was a breach of the editorial policies.
Fagir: “Can you explain how the Human Rights Watch post gave rise to the concern that you express [about impartiality].”
Latimer: “We instructed Ms Lattouf not to post regarding the Middle East conflict.”
He later conceded he was not sure Lattouf had breached editorial policies: “I did not think she had breached.”
Latimer said his “primary concern” was that Lattouf had failed to comply with a direction he says she was given not to post at all about the Israel-Gaza war while she was on-air.
The court has adjourned for lunch and will return at 2.15pm with Latimer.
Patricia Karvelas’s post on ‘stupid’ Covid protesters shown in court
Fagir is now moving on to the day Lattouf was dismissed from Radio Sydney.
Latimer is shown a screenshot of an article in Women’s Agenda about Lattouf, which she had posted on social media.
It prompted Latimer to look at Lattouf’s social media accounts.
Fagir has also shown Latimer a photograph of Patricia Karvelas, who was at the time the host of RN Breakfast.
He is asking whether a post that Karvelas made on X, formerly Twitter, about Covid breached impartiality standards.
I’m genuinely shocked that there are that many people stupid enough to protest and spread a virus that might kill them. My brain hurts. #COVID19nsw
— Patricia Karvelas (@PatsKarvelas) July 24, 2021
The post from Karvelas, dated from July 2021, states: “I am genuinely shocked that there are many people stupid enough to protest and spread a virus that may kill them. My brain hurts.”
Fagir’s questioning on Karvelas’s post is then challenged by Justice Darryl Rangiah.
Fagir then tells the court:
We propose to submit that the [impartiality] rule as it has been articulated is utterly incoherent.
It has no foundation in any policy. Is inconceivable that any of these people genuinely believed it.
More questions about ‘the direction’
This part of the cross-examination is focused on whether Lattouf was given a direction or a suggestion not to post. This of course is crucial to the question of whether she disobeyed a direct order by posting on Instagram about a Human Rights Watch report.
Fagir: “And your evidence is that when you read it [an email], you were satisfied that Ms Lattouf had been given a direction?”
Latimer: “That’s correct.”
Fagir: “You seriously ask the court to believe that when you read ‘she has also suggested that Antoinette may be wise not to post anything on her socials’ that confirmed in your mind that the direction had been given?”
Latimer: “Yes.”
Justice Rangiah is seeking clarification about why Latimer was so confident his direction to Ahern had been carried out.
“Having dealt with Mr Ahern before, I had no reason to doubt that it hadn’t been,” Latimer says.
