The ABC has been hit with an interim court order barring the broadcaster from publishing a story revealing the group chat of three high-profile Aussie sport stars who allegedly made vulgar comments about sexual acts and domestic violence.
NSW Supreme Court Justice Anthony McGrath last week granted an injunction against the ABC and suppressed the identities of the men, who were given the court-appointed pseudonyms AB, CD and EF.
The court heard the ABC came into possession of the texts after one of the athletes’ ex-partners, known as GH in court, leaked a series of messages to sport reporter Marnie Vinali.
The messages in question ‘principally contain shared jokes, insults of other people known to AB, CD, and EF in their sport and crude descriptions of sexual acts and domestic violence.’
The men are all described as ‘highly credentialed in their sport’.
But the standing court order prohibits any disclosure of their identities, occupation or employer – at least, for now – on the basis the messages were obtained via a breach of confidence.
ABC reporter Marnie Vinall (pictured) was shown the alleged messages by the former partner of one of the men whose names cannot be published
The ABC has been hit with a court order barring the publication of a story exposing three sport stars’ alleged vulgar remarks about domestic violence in a group chat
Two of the men in the group chat are reportedly married with children, and one of the married men also ‘holds many high-profile ambassador roles, commercial sponsorship arrangements and media roles.’
The court was told that revealing his messages ‘will be devastating to the important work that he performs as an advocate within and outside his sport’.
All three men also claimed the messages would ‘likely lead to serious harm to their reputation and standings as well as financial interests.’
The athletes have also admitted that they are potentially in breach of their contracts and could face punishment from their sports’ governing bodies for bringing it into disrepute.
An ABC spokesperson noted that Justice McGrath’s decision was only in effect until a final hearing on the case.
‘The ABC stands by the conduct of its journalists acting in the public interest. The ABC is also concerned about the broader ramifications this decision may have on investigative journalism and the public’s right to know.’
Two of the men in the group chat are reportedly married with children, and one of the married men also ‘holds many high-profile ambassador roles, commercial sponsorship arrangements and media roles, a court heard (stock image)
The court heard that the ABC came into possession of the messages after GH accessed the group chat on AB’s old mobile phone.
‘Unbeknownst to AB, during their relationship, GH accessed the Group Chat on AB’s old mobile phone (GH says AB had given the password to her to open the phone; however AB denies giving her that password),’ the judgment said.
‘(GH) took a photograph of a screen image of a portion of the Group Chat and, following the acrimonious end of the relationship between AB and GH, retained AB’s old mobile phone, which enabled GH to access the Group Chat after they had ceased living together.’
GH felt a ‘strong moral obligation’ to speak about the messages, and, after talking to a person who was referred to in the group chat, was referred to Ms Vinall because she was seen as ‘the most appropriate’ reporter to publish a story.
The two people referred to in the group chat texts told Ms Vinall they did not object to the contents of the messages being published, the judgment said.
Last week, Ms Vinall reached out to the athletes and the sport’s governing body, and the players responded by taking legal action against the ABC and Vinall for a breach of confidence.
In granting the sport stars’ request for an interim order barring publication of their messages, Justice McGrath said: ‘There is no urgent news need in the public interest for the ABC to publish any story about the text messages.’
Justice McGrath rejected the ABC’s argument that the messages should not be protected because they amounted to ‘trivial tittle-tattle’ and said there was a serious legal issue to consider.
‘The evidence suggests that the text messages in the group chat are the private thoughts of the plaintiffs (in some instances expressed in vulgar and offensive terms), shared with each other and not beyond, and were never intended by the plaintiffs to be made public,’ McGrath ruled.
The injunction will remain in place pending a final hearing, where the court will test whether the means by which the texts were obtained was improper or ‘reprehensible’.
