A request by pro-Israel lobbyists to launch contempt proceedings against editors and reporters from Nine for allegedly breaching a suppression order in Antoinette Lattouf’s unlawful termination case is “probably doomed”, Nine’s lawyers have argued in the federal court.
The editors of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age – Bevan Shields and Patrick Elligett – are among eight individuals, including lawyers, named in the request.
The pro-Israel lobby group have alleged the newspapers breached a suppression order in Lattouf’s unlawful termination case against the ABC in four articles, the court heard. The suppression order was made to protect pro-Israel individuals who had contacted the ABC to complain about Lattouf’s employment.
The hearing on Wednesday began immediately after justice Darryl Rangiah had found Lattouf was unlawfully sacked by the ABC after an “orchestrated campaign by pro-Israel lobbyists”.
Nine’s lawyer Tom Blackburn SC told the hearing that the primary article in dispute was not in breach of the suppression order because it was published months before Lattouf took legal action, and therefore had no connection to the case.
The article, written by Michael Bachelard and Calum Jaspan in January 2024, exposed a coordinated campaign to have Lattouf removed from the ABC.
The court heard the names of people who had complained to the ABC about Lattouf were removed from the article in March 2025, after Lattouf’s trial took place in February.
Blackburn told the court that Nine newspapers were never told the identities of the the nine people – who were part of the 157 members of the Lawyers for Israel group – named in the suppression order.
“We didn’t know which ones were applicants,” Blackburn said. “We couldn’t be expected to just pull the articles down.
“Any contempt prosecution is very probably doomed, because the registrar would have to think we knew the identities of the protected parties.”
Sue Chrysanthou SC, acting for the pro-Israel group, said that the registrar should prosecute the application for contempt to demonstrate the importance of such orders.
Chrysanthou reminded the court that the order was made on the grounds of safety for her clients. She pointed to an article published in the Australian newspaper which detailed how those named had faced “death threats”.
The court heard four articles were in dispute – three of which were published before the suppression order was imposed by the court. One article was published by the Nine-owned Pedestrian.
Chrysanthou argued one article, which was published the day the suppression order was made, was in breach of the order because it had directed readers to an earlier story that had named her clients.
She said that the article was then amended after her instructing solicitor contacted the journalist, Jaspan. The update included that members of the pro-Israel lobby had had their names suppressed.
Chrysanthou argued this amendment showed Jaspan and his editors understood the “import of the orders”.
Crysanthou told the court that more than half a dozen letters were sent to the Nine papers claiming they were in breach of the order, but they received no reply.
“No acknowledgment of receipt, no response, nothing,” she told the court.
Blackburn said the lawyers acting on behalf of the pro-Israel group failed to inform them in these letters the exact identities of who fell under a suppression order, and also referred to a “male” as one individual under the order.
Blackburn argued the mention of a male cast “further doubt” over claims the story breached a suppression order, given the lawyers from Nine were aware the suppression order related to nine Jewish women.
The hearing is scheduled to continue on 18 July.
• This article was amended on 26 June 2025 to clarify that Nine’s 3 February 2025 story directed readers to a January 2024 story in the text, but there was no hyperlink.
