Complete and total nonsense, SM.
Please look at the judge’s decision. He said that Ms Prior’s complaint “had no reasonable prospects of success” and was “bound to fail”.
The s18C and 18D cases make it crystal clear: to violate the Act, the conduct must be part of a sustained campaign of vilification motivated by racial hatred, involving multiple malicious lies.
That is how it has always been interpreted. Ref Creek, Jones, Kelly-Country, Bropho, Bolt, etc.
Tragically for the students and Ms Prior, the Murdoch media has lied about the Act for the last six years and convinced a lot of people it is bad law.
It isn’t.
Those students didn’t need to fork out $5000 to Ms Prior’s lawyers or any money to anybody else. They didn’t even need lawyers. Ref Kelly-Country v Beers.
If they had done what Chris Lee did and ignored the whole tawdry try-on, it would have cost them nothing.
Reputational damage was not caused by the Act. It was caused by The Australian publishing the students' names – even though it knew full well they they were all completely innocent.
Don’t let them suck you in, SM.
Cheers,
AA

Alan,

You are singularly one of the most mendacious posters I have met. You make wild claims and provide as proof links that have bugger all to do with the issue. Kelly-Country v Beers does not confirm one thing that you have claimed.

That CP's case heavily affected the students is not in dispute, and if Chris Lee had been named in the case and ignored it he would have been in severe trouble.

If the case was entirely frivolous, Wood's suit against CP's lawyers would have succeeded and issued a warning. However, his case failed as the judge ruled that CP's case was not hopeless, and if the barrister had not acted pro bono the students would have been vindicated but out of pocket by upward of $100 000.

Now please review the information and stop lying.

Nonsense, SM.
Chris Lee was named in the case. Ninth respondent. See here:
file:///D:/Alan/Documents/Freelance%20July%202017/Indigenous/Cindy%20Prior%20S18%20RDA/prior-v-queensland-university-of-technology-ors-no-2-2016-fcca-2853.pdf
He did ignore it. He did not get into severe trouble.
Kelly-Country v Beers is a case where the appellant successfully defended a claim against him without legal representation.
Correct?
Apology, please, SM.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Alan A

Alan,

You are as mendacious as ever, You still haven't given anything to prove "The s18C and 18D cases make it crystal clear: to violate the Act, the conduct must be part of a sustained campaign of vilification motivated by racial hatred, involving multiple malicious lies." yet you perpetuate the lie.

On top of that, you claim that the Australian is lying when it says "Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful for someone to do an act that is reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race or ethnicity." When it is cut and paste from the AHRC. Are they lying too?

Chris Lee dodged a bullet by not turning up and risked a summary judgement. It was luck not good judgement.

Similarly, your example of Kelly-Country v Beers is complete bollocks as neither party had representation. The students going alone against a company of lawyers would be idiotic.

Apologies please Alan.

External link for the case showing Chris Lee as ninth respondent is here:

https://theaustralianatnewscorpau.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/prior-v-queensland-university-of-technology-ors-no-2-2016-fcca-2853.pdf

Cheers,
AA

How did you do that, SM?
Someone just deleted your post and my reply to your post, then replaced your post with another one.
Impressive.
Are you Graham Young?
Thanks, SM.
Cheers,
AA