The broadcaster had not asserted the allegations were true
In a Victoria Supreme Court ruling that quietly reaffirmed one of journalism's oldest protections, Melbourne underworld figure Mick Gatto lost his defamation case against the ABC over a 2019 article linking him to threats and gangland murders. Justice Andrew Keogh found the broadcaster had done nothing more than faithfully report allegations as they arose in court proceedings — a distinction the law has long held sacred. The case reminds us that the space between 'it was alleged' and 'it happened' is not merely grammatical, but a boundary upon which press freedom rests.
- Gatto, 65, sued the ABC seeking maximum compensation and a public apology after a 2019 article reported allegations he threatened to kill lawyer-turned-informant Nicola Gobbo and was linked to two gangland murders.
- The case struck at a tension as old as journalism itself — whether a news organisation can be held liable for faithfully reporting damaging claims made inside a courtroom.
- On the stand, Gatto testified the article made him 'sick' and that the broadcaster's silence on an apology compounded his grievance, giving the case a raw, personal edge beyond legal argument.
- The ABC's defence hinged on absolute privilege — the media's right to report court proceedings without defamation liability, provided allegations are not presented as established fact.
- Justice Keogh ruled the ABC had meticulously framed the claims as allegations, not truths, and dismissed the case entirely — leaving Gatto with no compensation, no apology, and no judicial vindication.
- The decision lands as a firm reaffirmation of media privilege in Australia, signalling that careful attribution remains a journalist's most durable legal shield.
A Melbourne underworld figure's attempt to hold Australia's national broadcaster accountable ended in Victoria's Supreme Court on Friday, when Justice Andrew Keogh dismissed Mick Gatto's defamation case against the ABC in full. Gatto had sued over a 2019 article reporting allegations that he threatened to kill Nicola Gobbo — a lawyer who became a police informant — and that he was implicated in the gangland murders of Victor Peirce and Frank Benvenuto. He sought maximum compensation and a public apology, arguing the piece had damaged his reputation by presenting grave accusations without adequate qualification.
The case turned on a deceptively simple distinction: the difference between reporting that something was alleged and reporting that something occurred. The ABC's defence rested on absolute privilege — the legal protection allowing media organisations to report on court proceedings without defamation liability, so long as they do not assert the truth of the claims. Justice Keogh found the broadcaster had done exactly that, carefully framing the allegations as claims that emerged during legal proceedings rather than as established facts.
Gatto, who took the stand during the trial, made no secret of his distress. The article made him 'sick,' he said, and the ABC's refusal to apologise deepened his grievance. The court acknowledged his unhappiness but found it offered no legal remedy. The law, as Keogh applied it, protected the broadcaster's right to report what had been alleged in court — provided it went no further.
The ruling reinforces a longstanding principle in Australian media law: careful attribution is both an ethical obligation and a legal defence. For Gatto, the outcome means no compensation, no apology, and no finding of wrongdoing. For the press, it affirms that the courtroom remains a space whose proceedings can be reported freely — even when the allegations within it are grave.
A Melbourne underworld figure's bid to hold Australia's national broadcaster accountable for defamation came to an end in Victoria's Supreme Court on Friday, when Justice Andrew Keogh dismissed the case entirely. Mick Gatto, 65, had sued the ABC over a 2019 article that reported allegations he had threatened to kill Nicola Gobbo, a lawyer who became a police informant, and that he was implicated in the gangland murders of Victor Peirce and Frank Benvenuto. Gatto argued the piece damaged his reputation by presenting these serious accusations without sufficient qualification, and he sought maximum compensation along with a public apology from the broadcaster.
The case turned on a fundamental question about how news organizations can report on allegations made in court proceedings. The ABC's defense rested on what lawyers call absolute privilege—the right of the media to report on evidence and claims presented during legal proceedings without fear of defamation liability, even when those claims are serious or damaging. Justice Keogh's ruling upheld this principle, finding that the broadcaster had not asserted the allegations were true but had instead carefully framed them as allegations that emerged during court proceedings.
"It is understandable that Mr Gatto is unhappy about the publication of the article, which reports on very serious allegations that were made against him," Justice Keogh acknowledged in his decision. But the judge found the ABC had done nothing wrong in how it presented the material. The broadcaster, he ruled, had not imputed that the allegations were factual; rather, it had meticulously recorded them as nothing more than claims made in the course of legal proceedings. This distinction—between reporting that something was alleged and reporting that something happened—proved decisive.
When Gatto took the stand during the trial the previous year, he expressed his frustration directly. The article made him "sick," he said, and he was particularly aggrieved that the broadcaster had not apologized. "It's terrible what they said about me," he testified. His distress was genuine, but the court found it did not constitute grounds for a successful defamation claim. The law, as Justice Keogh applied it, protected the ABC's right to report on the allegations as they had been made in court, provided the broadcaster did not present them as established fact.
The ruling reinforces a longstanding principle in Australian media law: news organizations have significant protection when reporting on court proceedings, even when those proceedings involve serious criminal allegations. The decision suggests that as long as journalists carefully attribute claims to their sources and do not assert their truth, they can report on damaging allegations without facing successful defamation suits. For Gatto, the loss means no compensation, no apology, and no judicial finding that the ABC had wronged him. For the broader media landscape, the decision affirms that reporting on what happens in court—and what is alleged there—remains a protected function, even when the allegations are grave.
Citações Notáveis
It is understandable that Mr Gatto is unhappy about the publication of the article, which reports on very serious allegations that were made against him.— Justice Andrew Keogh
It's terrible what they said about me.— Mick Gatto, testifying at trial
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why did the court think it mattered that the ABC said these were allegations rather than facts?
Because defamation law doesn't punish you for reporting what someone else said or what a court heard. It punishes you for asserting something false as your own claim. The ABC was careful to say "allegations were made" rather than "Gatto did this." That distinction saved them.
But Gatto was clearly hurt by the article. Doesn't that count for anything?
The court acknowledged his unhappiness. But hurt feelings aren't the same as defamation. The law protects the right to report on court proceedings because courts are public, and what happens there should be knowable. If you could sue every time a court allegation was reported, you'd chill reporting on trials themselves.
So a person could be accused of murder in court, the media reports it accurately, and they have no recourse?
Not quite. If the media added their own false claims, or misrepresented what was actually said in court, that's different. But if they're faithfully reporting what was alleged during proceedings, yes—that's protected. The theory is that the court system itself is the place to challenge false allegations, not the defamation courts.
What does this mean for Gatto now?
He lost. No compensation, no apology, no vindication. His only option would be to appeal, but the judge's reasoning is pretty solid under Australian law. He's stuck with the article out there, and the court has now officially said the ABC did nothing wrong in publishing it.