28/09/2023, 14:44 Barilaro v Google LLC [2022] FCA 650 INTRODUCTION 1 John Barilaro, the applicant, was the Deputy Premier of New South Wales and leader of the State Parliamentary National Party from 15 November 2016. He is known by the English equivalent of his actual name, Giovanni. On 5 October 2021, he resigned as Deputy Premier, announced his intention to retire from politics and, on the next day, resigned from his other Ministerial offices. For over a year preceding his resignation as Deputy Premier, Mr Barilaro had been the subject of a relentless, racist, vilificatory, abusive and defamatory campaign conducted on YouTube, a platform operated by Google LLC, the respondent. The creator of that campaign, known as Jordan Shanks and online as friendlyjordies, was formerly a respondent in this proceeding. YouTube is the second most visited website in the world after Google. 2 Over the two weeks immediately preceding the second day of the trial, Google progressively abandoned all its defences. Some of those defences were obviously hopeless, such as Google’s denials that the matters complained of conveyed the imputations that Mr Barilaro pleaded. The matters complained of 3 The matters complained of were two YouTube videos, bruz, first uploaded on 14 September 2020, and Secret Dictatorship, first uploaded on 21 October 2020. 4 Mr Barilaro pleads that the bruz video, in its natural and ordinary meaning, conveyed the following five imputations, or imputations that do not differ in substance (when I refer to imputations in these reasons I intend to include ones that do not differ from them in substance), that were defamatory of him, namely (statement of claim, par 9): (a) Mr Barilaro is a corrupt conman; (b) Mr Barilaro committed perjury nine times; (c) Mr Barilaro has so conducted himself in committing perjury nine times that he should be gaoled; (d) Mr Barilaro corruptly gave $3.3 million to a beef company; and (e) Mr Barilaro corruptly voted against a Royal Commission into water theft. 5 Mr Barilaro pleads that the Secret Dictatorship video, in its natural and ordinary meaning, conveyed the following three imputations that were defamatory of him, namely (statement of claim, par 15): (a) Mr Barilaro has acted corruptly by engaging in the blackmailing of councillors; (b) Mr Barilaro has acted corruptly by engaging in the blackmailing of councillors using taxpayer money; and (c) Mr Barilaro has pocketed millions of dollars which have been stolen from the Narrandera Shire Council. 6 Mr Barilaro contends that Google is liable for publication of both matters complained of on and from 22 December 2020, being the date on which he served it with a concerns notice. Procedural history 7 Following a hearing on 23 July 2021, on 13 August 2021, I declared that Mr Shanks’ proposed defences of justification to imputations 9(b) and honest opinion relating to a matter of public interest based on proper material within the meaning of ss 25 and 31 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) would amount to questioning or impeaching proceedings in Parliament in contravention of Art 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 (Eng), as applied in New South Wales by force of s 7 of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969 (NSW). Google had not been served at the time I heard that issue and played no role in that decision. I also found that there were several https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2022/2022fca0650 7/101