‘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.
Key events
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 the 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.
Fagir presses Latimer on the social media advice given to Lattouf
Fagir is now taking Latimer to advice he received from the acting editorial director, Simon Melkman.
Fagir: “What’s the point of asking Antoinette to keep a low profile on social media if she’s been directed not to post at all, or about the Israel-Gaza war?”
Latimer does not agree that it was pointless.
Fagir is trying to tease out whether Latimer gave Ahern a direction to give Lattouf not to post, because he says that is not reflected in the emails between managers.
“You don’t see any inconsistency between the direction you had in mind and it having been suggested to Ms Lattouf that she might be wise not to post?” Fagir asks Latimer.
Latimer is repeatedly saying he does not understand the question and Justice Rangiah is asking Fagir to be clearer in his cross-examination.
‘Blunt’ directive to not post anything about the Middle East conflict, court hears
The court has now resumed and Ben Latimer is back.
Latimer says he agreed he gave Steve Ahern a “blunt” directive to inform Lattouf “not to post anything on social media”.
“Steve and I spoke fairly in fairly direct terms,” Latimer says.
The direction to Steve was that Ms Lattouf doesn’t post anything in the context of the Middle East conflict on her socials.
That was the direction.
Latimer could not explain what the basis of the instruction was, but tells the court he was following instructions.
Fagir: “What right in your mind did the ABC have to tell Ms Lattouf what she could and couldn’t do on her private time, on her social media?”
Latimer: “We were protecting Ms Lattouf, ensuring she made it to the end of the week, and ensuring that ABC’s impartiality was not compromised.”
Ben Latimer now giving evidence
Ben Latimer, the director of audio, who has been at the ABC for 18 months, is now in the witness box.
He says he was trained in ABC policies and editorial standards when he joined the broadcaster, and that he was elevated to the executive last year and now heads up the audio team of about 500 people.
The court has adjourned for 20 minutes because Justice Rangiah has to attend to another matter.
Antoinette Lattouf arrives for day seven of hearing
‘Pressure coming from higher up’
Green tells the court she saw Lattouf in a state of distress after she was sacked and she agreed that she had said words to the effect that she “had tried to stop them” and she was sorry.
The two women spoke in a board room and Green told Lattouf there was “pressure coming from higher up”.
I said there was pressure for her to be removed from the Monday.
“And I understood it had been referred up,” Green says.
“I already said there was pressure from, pressure from the Monday to get rid of Ms Lattouf”
Green says she told Green it was not Ahern’s decision but it came from higher up.
Green felt there was nothing wrong with Instagram post from Human Rights Watch, court hears
Green disagrees with Boncardo over whether she used the word “impartial” in her conversation with Lattouf.
Boncardo: “Do you agree that you said something to the effect that it was probably best she keep a low profile on social media?
Green: “Yes.
Boncardo: “And maybe best not to post anything at all.”
Green: “Yes.
Green agrees she may have told Lattouf not to post anything “controversial” or “unbalanced”.
Green agrees she told Lattouf she could post facts from “reputable sources”.
This matches the evidence Lattouf gave last week.
Green also says she told Steve Ahern she did not think there was anything wrong with the Instagram post from Human Rights Watch. The post stated Israel had used starvation as a “weapon of war” in Gaza.
Ahern is the former head of ABC Sydney local radio. He hired Lattouf for five days in December 2023.
Elizabeth Green says she told Lattouf to be ‘mindful’ about social media posts
Elizabeth Green, Lattouf’s line manager in December 2023, is the first witness. She tells the court she is currently the executive producer of the Drive program on ABC Sydney local radio.
Lattouf’s barrister, Philip Boncardo, is taking Green back to 18 December when her manager, Steve Ahern, first told her that there had been complaints about Lattouf being hired by the ABC.
Green agrees that she spoke to Lattouf on the telephone and told her that had been complaints but that she had not read them but she imagined they were from the pro-Israel lobby.
“I said that she should avoid posting,” Green says. “I mean, I remember saying that she should be mindful.
“Well, I would say that she should avoid posting anything related to the Israel-Palestine situation.
“I said I thought she was doing a good job on the show.”
Justice Darryl Rangiah asks media to comply with suppression order
The court is now in session and Justice Darryl Rangiah started by asking any media who may have published the names of some of the people who complained about Lattouf to comply with his suppression order last week.
“I made a suppression order last Monday, the solicitors acting for the applicants who sought the suppression order have written to the court asserting that a particular media organisation has published articles which disclose the identities of those protected by the suppression order,” he said.
What we can expect
Justice Darryl Rangiah will need to run a tight ship to get through the three remaining witnesses and ensure the trial finishes today.
The three who are still to give evidence in the unlawful termination trial are all current managers from the ABC who were involved in events surrounding and leading up to the Lattouf dismissal in some way.
Simon Melkman was the ABC’s acting editorial director in December 2023 and appears to be the coolest head in the saga, advising management that there was no basis for removing Lattouf when concerns first arose on the Monday of her first shift hosting Mornings.
The concern was sparked by emailed complaints, to managing director David Anderson and chair Ita Buttrose, now known to be, at least in part, a co-ordinated campaign by a group named Lawyers for Israel.
Ben Latimer was the head of audio/radio at the time, reporting to Chris Oliver-Taylor as head of content. He was later elevated to director of audio by chair Kim Williams and now sits on the executive. Latimer is the manager who spotted Lattouf’s post on Instagram about Human Rights Watch and alerted Oliver-Taylor to it on the Wednesday. Within hours Lattouf had been dismissed.
Elizabeth Green was Lattouf’s line manager and the woman tasked with relaying instructions from Oliver-Taylor on the Tuesday and the Wednesday. Evidence has so far been contradictory about what Green was supposed to say and what she did say. Lattouf has described Green as sympathetic to her and described how they cried together at the lifts when Lattouf was told to leave.
Welcome
Hi, I’m Amanda Meade, and I’ll be watching day seven of the Antoinette Lattouf v ABC unlawful termination claim.
We will bring you all the evidence as it unfolds from 10.15am.
Today we will hear from the remaining three ABC witnesses: Simon Melkman, Ben Latimer and Elizabeth Green.
