Barilaro v Shanks-Markovina

[2][3] The case revolved around claims that two videos published on the friendlyjordies YouTube channel brought the then Deputy Premier of New South Wales, John Barilaro, into public disrepute, odium, ridicule, and contempt.

[1] Rares declined to consider defences relating to Barilaro's actions before a committee of the New South Wales Legislative Council as they would be a breach of parliamentary privilege contrary to Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 (Eng) as law in New South Wales.

[13]Barilaro filed a complaint before the Federal Court claiming that two videos published on the friendlyjordies YouTube channel unreasonably defamed him.

The proposed justification defence for imputation 9(b) would involve impeaching or questioning in Federal Court what Mr Barilaro said in the proceedings of a committee of the Legislative Council.

Rares noted that this violated Barilaro's Parliamentary privilege under Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 (Eng), applied to proceedings in the Parliament of New South Wales by force of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 (NSW), thereby binding him to strike out the defence if it were to be filed.

The judgement also stated that Rares found that "it would be unfair to deprive Mr Barilaro of the right to vindicate his reputation that Mr Shanks attacked," and that he believed a decision to strike out the imputations "would allow the publisher to be free to defame [Barilaro] or other person [who has engaged in proceedings in Parliament] with impunity on the basis that any defence of the publisher’s attack would infringe on Parliamentary privilege.

[18] Respondent Google plead defences of qualified privilege and honest opinion, and agreed with Shanks-Markovina's application for the court for trial before a jury.

[21] Google's conduct in maintaining their defences, only to withdraw them days before the trial was criticised by Justice Rares, who accused Google of wasting Barilaro's money, and the federal court's time, claiming that, "if this [legal case] was uncontested this could have been heard last year.

Rares stated that he was "shocked" by the videos, that suggested Barilaro's lawyers may have submitted false statutory declarations.

Rares went on to claim that he was "completely dumbfounded" by Google's conduct in failing to remove the videos upon being notified, stating that they "know the law of contempt - or they should.

[25] Furthermore, it was argued that the videos had prompted a wave of online abuse towards Barilaro, and resulted in him being regularly confronted by members of the public.