Catchwords:

HUMAN RIGHTS – where the primary judge correctly held that a tweet that told the respondent to “piss off back to Pakistan” was reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate the respondent – where the primary judge correctly admitted and relied upon evidence relevant to the statutory task required by s 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (RDA) – where the primary judge correctly characterised the tweet as conveying three central messages – where the primary judge correctly held that it was reasonably likely that a reasonable hypothetical person in the respondent’s position, and a reasonable hypothetical member of the identified groups, would be offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the appellant’s tweet – where the appellant had sufficient notice of the groups identified by the primary judge for the purpose of s 18C of the RDA – where the respondent was a member of the groups identified by the primary judge – where the tweet was published because of the respondent’s race, colour, national or ethnic origin – where the exemption under s 18D of the RDA must be construed having regard to the normative considerations which inform s 18C of the RDA – where the primary judge correctly held that the tweet was not published reasonably and in good faith

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – constitutional validity of s 18C of the RDA – where s 18C of the RDA is properly authorised by a constitutional head of power – where s 18C of the RDA does not impermissibly burden the implied freedom of political communication – where s 18C is constitutionally valid