Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales

• Medium Neutral Citation: Burns v Sunol (No2) [2014] NSWCATAD 126
• Hearing dates: 30 July 2014
• Decision date: 03 September 2014
• Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
• Before: N Hennessy LCM, Deputy President; A Lowe, General Member; M Nasir, General Member

Decision

The tribunal orders Mr Sunol to pay Mr Burns $2,500 for breaching orders 3 and 4 of the Tribunal's orders dated 14 May 2014.

• Catchwords: CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL -enforcement of orders made under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 - homosexual vilification and victimisation - non-compliance with conduct orders - remedies for breach of orders
• Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW); Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
• Cases Cited: Burns v Sunol [2014] NSWCATAD62
• Category: Principal judgment
• Parties: Garry Burns (Applicant); John Sunol (Respondent)
• Representation: G Burns (Applicant in person); J Sunol (Respondent in person)
• File Number(s): 131095

reasons for decision

Introduction

1 On 14 May 2014 the Tribunal found that complaints under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) by Mr Burns against Mr Sunol had been substantiated. The Tribunal ordered that Mr Sunol apologise to Mr Burns and remove homosexually vilifying material and material which victimised Mr Burns from websites controlled by him. The Tribunal also ordered Mr Sunol to refrain from publishing further material "to the same or similar effect": Anti-Discrimination Act s 108(2)(b). In default of compliance with those orders within 14 days, the Tribunal ordered that Mr Sunol pay Mr Burns $2,500: Anti-Discrimination Act, s 108(9).

2 The Tribunal also ordered Mr Sunol to pay damages of $1,000 for breaching the homosexual vilification provisions and $5,000 for breaching the victimisation provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act. Mr Sunol has not complied with these orders but the Tribunal does not have power under s 108 to order a person to pay further damages if he or she does not pay the amount the Tribunal originally ordered. The Tribunal's orders in Burns v Sunol [2014] NSWCATAD62 (the Tribunal's first decision) are set out in full at the end of these reasons.

3 The matter was listed on 9 July 2014 at 10 am to determine whether Mr Sunol had complied with the Tribunal's conduct orders, that is, orders 3, 4 5 and 9. Mr Sunol complied with the orders to apologise publicly on his website and personally to Mr Burns by letter (orders 5 and 9). Mr Burns submitted that Mr Sunol had not complied with orders 3 and 4, to remove the vilifying and victimising material identified by the Tribunal in its first decision from websites controlled by him and to refrain from publishing further material "to the same or similar effect."

4 Mr Sunol did not appear at the hearing which commenced at 10 am. He did appear in another matter also involving Mr Burns at 2 pm on the same day. He told the Tribunal in that matter that he did not realise that the current matter was on at 10 am and that if he had realised he would have attended. The Tribunal directed Mr Burns to serve him Mr Sunol with the evidence on which he relies in these proceedings (Exhibits A to P) and for Mr Sunol to file any evidence or submissions in reply by 30 July 2014. Mr Sunol did file submissions in reply on 21 July 2014 even though he mistakenly indicated that those submissions related to a different matter.

Issue

5 The issue in these proceedings is whether Mr Sunol is in default of orders 3 or 4 of the Tribunal's first decision. Those orders were that:

(3) Within 14 days of the date of this decision, Mr Sunol is to remove the unlawful material identified in Orders 1 and 2 from every website controlled by him and all material to the same or similar effect.

(4) Mr Sunol is to refrain from publishing the material described in Orders 1 and 2 or material to the same or similar effect, on any website, controlled by him.

6 If Mr Sunol is in breach of either of these orders, the Tribunal will make a new order that he pay Mr Burns further damages of $2,500.

Legislative provisions

7 The provision of the Anti-Discrimination Act which makes homosexual vilification unlawful is s 49ZT:

(1) It is unlawful for a person, by a public act, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the homosexuality of the person or members of the group.

8 A public act is defined in s 49ZS as follows:

"public act" includes:

(a) any form of communication to the public, including speaking, writing, printing, displaying notices, broadcasting, telecasting, screening and playing of tapes or other recorded material, and

(b) any conduct (not being a form of communication referred to in paragraph (a)) observable by the public, including actions and gestures and the wearing or display of clothing, signs, flags, emblems and insignia, and

(c) the distribution or dissemination of any matter to the public with knowledge that the matter promotes or expresses hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the homosexuality of the person or members of the group.

9 Certain exceptions are set out in s 49ZT(2);

(2) Nothing in this section renders unlawful:

(a) a fair report of a public act referred to in subsection (1), or

(b) a communication or the distribution or dissemination of any matter on an occasion that would be subject to a defence of absolute privilege (whether under the Defamation Act 2005 or otherwise) in proceedings for defamation, or

(c) a public act, done reasonably and in good faith, for academic, artistic, religious instruction, scientific or research purposes or for other purposes in the public interest, including discussion or debate about and expositions of any act or matter.

10 The provision making victimisation unlawful is s 50:

(1) It is unlawful for a person ( "the discriminator" ) to subject another person ( "the person victimised" ) to any detriment in any circumstances on the ground that the person victimised has:

(a) brought proceedings against the discriminator or any other person under this Act,

(b) given evidence or information in connection with proceedings brought by any person against the discriminator or any other person under this Act,

(c) alleged that the discriminator or any other person has committed an act which, whether or not the allegation so states, would amount to a contravention of this Act, or

(d) otherwise done anything under or by reference to this Act in relation to the discriminator or any other person,

or by reason that the discriminator knows that the person victimised intends to do any of those things, or suspects that the person victimised has done, or intends to do, any of them.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the subjecting of a person to a detriment by reason of an allegation made by the person if the allegation was false and not made in good faith.

11 Section 108 of the Anti-Discrimination Act sets out the remedies the Tribunal may order if a complaint is substantiated:

(1) In proceedings relating to a complaint, the Tribunal may:

(a) dismiss the complaint in whole or in part, or

(b) find the complaint substantiated in whole or in part.

(2) If the Tribunal finds the complaint substantiated in whole or in part, it may do any one or more of the following:

(a) except in respect of a matter referred to the Tribunal under section 95 (2), order the respondent to pay the complainant damages not exceeding $100,000 by way of compensation for any loss or damage suffered by reason of the respondent's conduct,

(b) make an order enjoining the respondent from continuing or repeating any conduct rendered unlawful by this Act or the regulations,

(c) except in respect of a representative complaint or a matter referred to the Tribunal under section 95 (2), order the respondent to perform any reasonable act or course of conduct to redress any loss or damage suffered by the complainant,

(d) order the respondent to publish an apology or a retraction (or both) in respect of the matter the subject of the complaint and, as part of the order, give directions concerning the time, form, extent and manner of publication of the apology or retraction (or both),

(e) in respect of a vilification complaint, order the respondent to develop and implement a program or policy aimed at eliminating unlawful discrimination,

(f) make an order declaring void in whole or in part and either ab initio or from such time as is specified in the order any contract or agreement made in contravention of this Act or the regulations,

(g) decline to take any further action in the matter.

(3) An order of the Tribunal may extend to conduct of the respondent that affects persons other than the complainant or complainants if the Tribunal, having regard to the circumstances of the case, considers that such an extension is appropriate.

(4) The power of the Tribunal to award damages to a complainant is taken, in the case of a complaint lodged by a representative body, to be a power to award damages to the person or persons on behalf of whom the complaint is made and not to include a power to award damages to the representative body.

(5) In making an order for damages concerning a complaint made on behalf of a person or persons, the Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit as to the application of those damages for the benefit of the person or persons.

(6) If two or more vilification complaints are made in respect of the same public act of the respondent and those complaints are found to be substantiated in whole or in part, the Tribunal must not make an order or orders for damages that would cause the respondent to pay more than $100,000 in the aggregate in respect of that public act.

(7) If the Tribunal makes an order under subsection (2) (b), (c), (d) or (e), it may also order that, in default of compliance with the order within the time specified by the Tribunal, the respondent is to pay the complainant damages not exceeding $100,000 by way of compensation for failure to comply with the order.

Publications which the Tribunal found to be unlawful

12 The material which the Tribunal found to vilify homosexuals was in a single post on Mr Sunol's website or "blogspot" made on 11 August 2011. The Tribunal found that the following publications from that post, in context, vilified homosexuals:

(1) the image of a video clip "Antichrist in Chief" with a graphic of a man sodomising another man in conjunction with the following comment from Mr Sunol:

"Thank god for Russia's Fag law. Russia has a law that bars the public discussion of gay rights and relationships anywhere near children. And Antichrist Obama doesn't like it."

(2) the words, "I agree with Fred over this, lets pray for Salvation from God and know that the Russian people are good people and they have got it right with the GLSBT and Rainbow people who are in very evil groups driving by the devil to create troubles. "

(3) the image of a video clip "DEATH PENALTY 4 FAGS" with the comment "All nations should follow God in requiring the death penalty for sodomy" and

(4) the image of a video clip entitled "GOD H8S FAG MARRIAGE" and the comment that, 'I agree with this as God not only hates gay marriage, Gay Marriage is an abomination to Him . . . '

13 The allegedly victimising conduct is publications of text on Mr Sunol's blog on 19 August 2013 and five letters Mr Sunol wrote to Mr Burns during the period 29 July to 16 September 2013. The publications refer to Mr Burns' complaints to the Anti-Discrimination Board and the matters before the Tribunal and label him as: "a thief", "making false accusations and lies", "full of skulduggery and political lobbying", "full of fraud", "an ass hole", "a very evil man", "troublemaker", "thug", "liar" and "mongrel". We accepted Mr Burns' submission that Mr Sunol subjected him to a detriment by making these remarks and that at least one of the reasons he did so was because he lodged complaints against him under the Anti-Discrimination Act.

14 In order to comply with the Tribunal's orders Mr Sunol was obliged to remove any publications "to the same or similar effect" by 28 May 2014 and to refrain from publishing any further material "to the same or similar effect" between 28 May 2014 and 9 July 2014, the date of the second hearing. It is not sufficient if the material amounts to homosexual vilification or victimisation. The subject matter or content must also be the same or similar to the publications which the Tribunal found to unlawful.

Alleged breaches of the orders

Introduction

15 Mr Burns tendered 16 publications from websites controlled by Mr Sunol which he printed out during the period from 11 June 2014 to 9 July 2014. He submitted that those publications contain material which was either already on websites controlled by Mr Sunol and that should have been removed in compliance with the Tribunal's orders or that Mr Sunol posted after the hearing and that he should not have posted.

16 Mr Sunol submits, in relation to the 16 publications, that he "did not write most of this". He says that most of the writings come from Luke McKee and that he is not attacking anyone in his blogs. He goes on, "I write about issues to do with what is in the news and I have had others put material on my blog."

17 We are satisfied that Mr Sunol was not the author of the videos he linked to his websites. In any case, none of the videos were in evidence so we cannot be satisfied that hyperlinking those videos to his website is in breach of the Tribunal's orders. We note that Mr Sunol has told the Tribunal by written submission on 16 July 2014 that he has taken down all the material that came from Luke McKee and the other material that Mr Burns complained about. We also note that Mr Burns has provided us with a print out saying "This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy prohibiting hate speech."

18 Some of the content on Mr Sunol's website was not written by him. Examples include a message in Exhibit J under "Hojuruku" and messages in Exhibit L from "Luke McKee". The issue in relation to these messages is whether failing to remove them means that Mr Sunol has performed a 'public act'.

19 Mr Sunol also submitted that some of the material was written in 2012 on an old twitter account that he no longer uses and for which he does not remember the pass word.

20 The remaining material that Mr Burns relied on was written by Mr Sunol. The material is posted on websites controlled by him and resembles other material Mr Sunol admits to having written. Where we have quoted material on Mr Sunol's websites, those quotes are verbatim.

Not removing "similar" homosexually vilifying material by 11 June 2014

21 Mr Sunol removed the post of 11 August 2013 which was the subject of the Tribunal's findings of homosexual vilification in the first decision. None of the 16 publications tendered by Mr Burns were examples of Mr Sunol not removing similar homosexually vilifying material by 11 June 2014.

Publishing similar homosexually vilifying material after 14 May 2014

22 Exhibit E is a publication on Mr Sunol's blogspot dated 5 June 2014 and which remained on that website on 6 June 2014. Mr Sunol writes, "A couple of videos for all to watch from Luke McKee - this sis the videos for all to watch and the twitter account to watch." Below these words are two hyperlinks to videos.

23 Mr Burns did not tender either of these videos but says that they state that homosexuals are paedophiles. The comments accompanying the hyperlinks do not vilify homosexuals. Without any evidence of a public act of Mr Sunol which vilifies homosexuals, we are not satisfied that any of the material in Exhibit E is in breach of order 4.

24 Exhibit G is a publication on Mr Sunol's blogspot dated 14 June 2014 and printed out on 16 June 2014. It states:

"Vudeo of child rape that I had sent to me, watch this video, it comes from a Luke McKee but I have not seen it yet Antoher video to watch as well on a trial for child rape Watch the videos to see why Bowersox is going back to jail - for perjury we hope! Unless he can prove gay men having sex with animals isn't depravity he lied to Federal court judge in District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishi to get a lesser sentence. That's perjury."

25 Below this passage there is a hyperlink to a You tube video which was not in evidence.

26 This publication is not "to the same or similar effect" as the publications that the Tribunal found to be unlawful in the first decision. Those publications did not relate to the question of whether expressing a view that gay men having sex with animals is "depraved" constitutes homosexual vilification. We do not regard the posting of this comment by Mr Sunol to be in breach of the Tribunal's orders.

27 On 1 June 2014 (Exhibit M) Mr Sunol posted the following material under the heading "Material from Luke McKee on changes to the criminal law to support grlr.org":

"grlr.org is trying to remove the criminal record of convicted gay 60 year olds who broke the law and fucked 16 year old boys now. Gay men who knowingly broke the law to have sex with under 18 year old boys will have their convictions quashed by a new bill so when they lower the age of consent to 12 will all the 60 year olds who fuck 12 year old boys retrospectively get off too?

28 We are not satisfied that the comment quoted above was written by Mr Sunol. We are satisfied that the following comment, written underneath this quote was written by Mr Sunol:

I had this information sent to me and I wish to show all my followers what the media does not show - this is one purpose of this blog, to show the world the truth.

29 Mr Sunol is responsible for publishing the first quote even though he did not write it because he wrote someone else's words on his website. This was not a message from another person posted on Mr Sunol's blog. It was material Mr Sunol copied from someone else and published on his website. Even so, it is not to the same or to similar effect as the material that the Tribunal found to constitute homosexual vilification in the first decision. It relates to an entirely different subject matter. We do not consider this material to be in breach of the Tribunal's orders.

Not removing similar victimising material within 14 days

30 Mr Sunol removed the post of 19 August 2013 containing the comments which the Tribunal held were in breach of the victimisation provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act.

31 Exhibit A is a publication Mr Sunol posted about a year ago, on 19 July 2013. It remained on Mr Sunol's 'blogspot' on 8 June 2014. It accuses Mr Burns of telling lies, framing him, being a "common thief", "abusing the court system," "stealing money by fraud" and "making up bullshit stories." He ends by stating that, "[Y]ou are a very evil man using fraud all of the time in your abuse of the legal system."

32 Exhibit C published on 23 August 2013, is another publication which is about a year old. It remained on Mr Sunol's blogspot on 8 June 2014. It accuses Mr Burns of committing 'purgery' and goes on to state:

You know who I am speaking to and I will fight you mongrel ot the day I die and never give in

Your are very evil and have committed a criminal offense of perjury by deliberately giving the police a false statement to get me thrown in prison.

I will not give in and I will come against you buster and I am a fighter when people do things like this. I will always fight back.

33 Exhibit D was posted on 18 March 2014 and remained on Mr Sunol's blogspot on 12 June 2014. It states:

I wish to let those who are abusing the court systems in taking me to court on false accusations . . You lot can go to hell I am going to get a job in the public and I am defy what you want

Understand me now Garry **** go to Hell buster I have a duty to lobby with luke Mckee against you and your likes

. . .

Yours doing this in pleasure

34 In relation to these posts Mr Sunol submitted that:

To relieve myself of this frustration and anger I have towards him I point this out all through the way I write on my blogs. He has unjustly accused me of wrong doing which I am not guilty of and when I answer this in truth, he throws it back on me that I am victimising him when in reality I am not victimising him, he is victimising me and attacking me unjustly and corruptly.

35 Regardless of the fact that Mr Sunol feels justified in abusing Mr Burns for having brought proceedings against him, the publications to which we have referred are all "to the same or similar effect" as the publications that the Tribunal found to constitute victimisation in the first decision. Mr Sunol uses similar words to describe Mr Burns including "mongrel", "evil" "thief" and "fraud." These words are abusive, derogatory and inflammatory. A reasonable person reading those publications would consider them to give rise to an "injury" in the form or offence or insult, and therefore to cause Mr Burns to suffer a detriment. We are satisfied that his references to 'taking me to court' demonstrate that the fact that Mr Burns has brought proceedings before this Tribunal is at least one of the reasons for Mr Sunol's abuse of Mr Burns.

36 Exhibit P is in similar terms referring to Mr Burns as a "scum bag", "court abuser" and a "thug." While this publication notes that Mr Sunol is prepared to fight Mr Burns in the courts, it does not refer to any of the matters in s 50(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act.

Publishing similar victimising material

37 As well as failing to remove victimising material, Mr Burns submitted that Mr Sunol has published further material which is in breach of s 50 of the Anti-Discrimination Act.

38 Exhibit H is a publication on Mr Burns' blogspot posted on 21 June 2014 which states that:

I lost this case only because I was set up and framed

This man is habitual court abuse who sues people and lies about them to get money

He is a proper **** (not polite for me to say how I feel about this liar) and I will be paying him nothing

I will apologize yet but an apology will never be genuine and a non genuine apology means nothing but a few words spout out of your mouth to fulfil court orders

This has not the sightest effect upon me

Click here andyou will find out

39 The hyperlink opens to the Tribunal's first decision on Mr Burns' blog page which identifies the person Mr Sunol is referring to as Mr Burns.

40 Referring to Mr Burns as a "liar" and a "habitual court abuser" is victimising conduct "to the same or similar effect" as that which the Tribunal found to be unlawful in the first decision.

41 Exhibit I was published on 25 June 2014 and states as follows:

I wish to tell Gary I took all the materiel down that I was supposed to but I will NOT be paying him any money as I still class him a thief who is in total abuse of the law and regularly goes to the NCAT telling lies about me. . .

42 Referring to Mr Burns as a "thief" and as "regularly going to the NCAT telling lies" is victimising conduct "to the same or similar effect" as that which the Tribunal found to be unlawful in the first decision.

43 We are satisfied that the publications in Exhibits H and I were made in breach of the Tribunal's orders and that Mr Sunol should pay Mr Burns $2,500 for breaching order 3 of the Tribunal's orders dated 14 May 2014 in that by 11 June 2014 he did not remove material to the same or similar effect as the unlawful material identified in order 2.

44 We are not satisfied that the remaining publications breach the Tribunal's orders. Exhibit E contains the following comment published on 3 June 2014:

@garyburnsblog is using NCATNSW Anti-discrimination Board to jail those who disagree with #gaydads #gaymafia and #humantrafficking and #childabuse. Maybe this video explains why he has a fetish for going online and threatening to kill Russians. Luke - @gaysabovethe law follow @bernardgaymor and @sunoljohn who he tries to extort money from too.

45 We are not satisfied that Mr Sunol was the author of this material. It accuses Mr Burns of trying to extort money from Mr Sunol and of using this Tribunal and the Anti-Discrimination Board to "jail those who disagree with certain points of view." Abusing Mr Burns for "using NCAT and the Anti-Discrimination Board" may be a contravention of s 50 of the Anti-Discrimination Act, but the material is not to "the same or similar effect" as the publications that the Tribunal found to constitute unlawful victimisation in the first decision.

46 Exhibit J is material published by Mr Sunol on 24 June 2014 in which he says, "Garry Burns is a trouble maker that I want to see put out of action." Because this publication does not mention Mr Burns having lodged a complaint of discrimination or any of the other matters listed in s 50(1)(a) - (d), the abuse in this publication does not constitute victimisation.

47 We have reached the same conclusion in relation to the following passage authored by Mr Sunol posted on 24 June 2014 (Exhibit K):

In this current case, I overheard him say to Magistrate Hennessy in the conference on June 4 that he has written to the Attorney General to try and have me become the first person in Australia to have me convicted of a "serious vilification" simply because I linked my blog to the writings of another person who is the true target of his current complaint.

48 This comment does not contain constitute a 'detriment' to Mr Burns and is not a breach of s 50 of the Anti-Discrimination Act.

49 The subject matter of Exhibit L is a complaint made by Mr Burns about radio broadcaster John Laws. Mr Sunol speculates as to Mr Burns' motive in making the complaint. While this comment may be in breach s 50 of the Anti-Discrimination Act, it is not "to the same or similar effect" as comments the Tribunal found to be victimisation in its first decision.

50 Exhibit N is a message from Luke McKee to Garry Burns posted by Mr Sunol on 2 July 2014. It states that "John as you no it's not a crime to link to someone elses website. The owner of lukesarmy.com anti-pedophile activist last year said that Gary Burns campaigns for the right of men who rape boys!" Mr Burns' submitted that posting this conduct victimises him and that Mr Sunol should have removed this message from the website that he controlled.

51 This material is not to the same or similar effect as the material that Mr Sunol published previously. It does not criticise Mr Burns on the ground of any of the matters listed in s 50 and consequently does not constitute victimisation.

Conclusion

52 We order Mr Sunol to pay Mr Burns $2,500 for breaching orders 3 and 4 of the Tribunal's orders dated 14 May 2014 in that by 11 June 2014 he did not remove material to the same or similar effect as the unlawful material identified in order 2 nor did he refrain from publishing material to the same or similar effect.

53 Mr Burns submitted that the Tribunal should consider referring Mr Sunol's non-compliance with the Tribunal's orders to the Supreme Court as contempt.

54 Part 5 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) deals with enforcement of the Tribunal's orders. Section 72 makes it an offence to contravene "designated" orders of the Tribunal:

(1) A person must not, without lawful excuse, contravene a designated order of the Tribunal.

Maximum penalty:

(a) in the case of a corporation-100 penalty units, or

(b) in any other case-50 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months, or both.

55 A "designated order" includes an order includes:

(b) an order of the Tribunal made under section 108 (2) (b), (c), (d) or (e) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 or an interim order of the Tribunal made under that Act,

56 Orders 3 and 4 of the Tribunal's first decision were each made under s 108(2)(b) of the Anti-Discrimination Act and are therefore designated orders. But in this decision the Tribunal has converted those orders into orders for the payment of damages. The payment of damages is not a designated order and non-compliance does not constitute an offence under s 72. Consequently the possibility of Mr Sunol being prosecuted for contravening orders 3 or 4 is no longer open.

57 As well as making it an offence to breach designated orders of the Tribunal, the NCAT Act gives the Tribunal power to impose a "civil penalty" on a person who contravenes other (non-designated) orders. Section 72(3) provides that:

(3) A person must not, without reasonable excuse, contravene any other order of the Tribunal made under this Act or any other legislation

Civil penalty provision

58 An application for a civil penalty must be brought by the Minister or by "a person with the written consent of either the Minister or another person or body authorised by the Minister for that purpose": s 75. For an individual, the amount of the civil penalty must not exceed $11,000. Mr Burns has not sought the permission of the Minister to apply for a civil penalty to be imposed on Mr Sunol for the non-payment of damages orders.

59 If Mr Burns wishes to enforce the damages orders that the Tribunal has made, he may request that a registrar certify the amount ordered to be paid by the Tribunal and file that certificate in a court having jurisdiction to give judgment for a debt of that amount: NCAT Act, s 78. As Mr Burns has a remedy for Mr Sunol's non-compliance with the Tribunal's orders, all of which are now orders for damages to be paid, we do not propose to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for determination.

Orders of the Tribunal made on 14 May 2014

(1) The following publications constitute homosexual vilification:

(a) the image of a video clip "Antichrist in Chief" with a graphic of a man sodomising another man in conjunction with the following comment from Mr Sunol:

(b) "Thank god for Russia's Fag law. Russia has a law that bars the public discussion of gay rights and relationships anywhere near children. And Antichrist Obama doesn't like it."

(c) the words, "I agree with Fred over this, lets pray for Salvation from God and know that the Russian people are good people and they have got it right with the GLSBT and Rainbow people who are in very evil groups driving by the devil to create troubles. "

(d) the image of a video clip "DEATH PENALTY 4 FAGS" with the comment "All nations should follow God in requiring the death penalty for sodomy" and

(e) the image of a video clip entitled "GOD H8S FAG MARRIAGE" and the comment that "I agree with this as God not only hates gay marriage, Gay Marriage is an abomination to Him ..."

(2) The following complaints of victimisation are substantiated:

The passages in bold set out at 36 above.

The passages in the letters dated 29 July 2013, 26 August 2013, 2 September 2013, 4 September 2013 and 16 September 2013 reproduced 37.

(3) Within 14 days of the date of this decision, Mr Sunol is to remove the unlawful material identified in Orders 1 and 2 from every website controlled by him and all material to the same or similar effect.

(4) Mr Sunol is to refrain from publishing the material described in Orders 1 and 2 or material to the same or similar effect, on any website, controlled by him.

(5) Within 14 days of the date of this decision, Mr Sunol is to post the following apology on every website controlled by him:

This apology is made pursuant to orders of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) made on 14 May 2014.

On 11 August 2013, I published statements on a website controlled by me: www.johnsunol.blogspot.com.au several comments concerning homosexuality and homosexual people.

On 14 May 2014 NCAT held that my statements amounted to unlawful homosexual vilification. NCAT found that they were capable, or had the effect, of inciting hatred or serious contempt of one or more homosexual people on the ground of their homosexuality.

I apologise for publishing these statements. I acknowledge that the words that I used vilified homosexuals in breach of the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. The aim of this Act is to promote tolerance, understanding and acceptance in the community. The Act sets limits on what can be said or done in public.

(6) In default of compliance with Orders 3, 4 or 5 within the specified time, Mr Sunol is to pay Mr Burns damages of $2,500 for breach of any of those Orders.

(7) Within 28 days Mr Sunol is to pay Mr Burns damages in the sum of $1,000 for the homosexual vilification.

(8) Within 28 days Mr Sunol is to pay Mr Burns $5,000 for the victimisation.

(9) Within 14 days of the date of this decision Mr Sunol is to post a signed letter of apology in the terms set out below to Mr Burns as follows:

Mr Gary Burns

PO Box 77

PADDINGTON NSW 2021

Dear Mr Burns

The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, in a decision dated 14May 2014 entitled Burns v Sunol, has found me to be in breach of provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 which state that victimisation, as defined in those provisions, is unlawful.

I offer my apologies for that behaviour.

Yours faithfully

John Sunol

(10) In default of compliance with Orders 7, 8 or 9 within the specified time, Mr Sunol is to pay Mr Burns damages of $2,500 for breach of any of those Orders.

(11) This matter is to be re-listed on 9 July 2014 at 10.00 am to determine whether Mr Sunol has complied with these Orders.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.
Registrar

Decision last updated: 03 September 2014