I'm sick of it. Very rarely do they write about me saying colourful businessman.
In a Victorian Supreme Court ruling that tested the boundaries between allegation and assertion, Melbourne underworld figure Mick Gatto's defamation case against the ABC was dismissed entirely. Justice Andrew Keogh found that the broadcaster's 2019 article had done precisely what responsible journalism requires — reporting what was said in legal proceedings without endorsing it as truth. The ruling affirms an old but vital distinction: that documenting the public record is not the same as condemning a man, even when the record is damning.
- Gatto entered court seeking the maximum damages the law would allow after the ABC declined to apologise over a 2019 article linking him to threats and murders — a high-stakes gamble that ultimately yielded nothing.
- The central tension was whether the article portrayed Gatto as a hitman and murderer, or merely reported what others had alleged in open court — a distinction with enormous legal consequences.
- His barrister argued the piece implied Gatto was among Australia's most violent criminals, connected to two unsolved murders and threats against barrister-turned-informer Nicola Gobbo.
- Justice Keogh found a 'gulf' between what Gatto claimed the article said and what it actually said, ruling the reporting entirely accurate and carefully bounded by the language of allegation rather than fact.
- The dismissal stands in sharp contrast to Gatto's earlier confidential settlement with the Daily Mail — which included an apology and a significant payout — suggesting the ABC's editorial precision made all the difference.
- The ruling signals that courts may hold underworld figures to a higher threshold when challenging media coverage of matters the judiciary considers legitimate public interest.
Mick Gatto arrived at the Victorian Supreme Court seeking the largest payout the law would allow from the ABC. He left with nothing. Justice Andrew Keogh dismissed his defamation case in full, finding that the public broadcaster and its journalists had not defamed him at all.
The case turned on a February 2019 ABC article that Gatto claimed portrayed him as a hitman and murderer, and suggested he had threatened barrister-turned-police-informer Nicola Gobbo. He had initially sought only an apology; when none came, he escalated to maximum damages. But Keogh found the article had been 'entirely accurate' and, crucially, had distinguished throughout between allegations aired in legal proceedings and assertions of fact — reporting what others said in court without endorsing those claims as true.
Gatto's barrister argued the piece implied his client was connected to the 2000 murder of fruiterer Frank Benvenuto and the 2002 murder of Victor Peirce. Keogh acknowledged the sting of seeing such allegations in print, but drew a firm line: unhappiness at damaging coverage is not defamation. He found a 'gulf' between what Gatto claimed the article implied and what it actually said.
On the stand, Gatto expressed weariness at his public image. He admitted his circles included dangerous men — among them hitman Benji Veniamin, whom he killed in self-defence in 2004 — but insisted his acquaintances also spanned politicians, lawyers, and builders. 'Very, very rarely do they write an article about me saying colourful businessman,' he told the court. 'I'm sick of it.' Keogh was unmoved, describing Gatto as 'newsworthy and a legitimate subject of public interest.'
The outcome contrasts sharply with Gatto's earlier settlement with the Daily Mail over similar coverage, which included an apology and a significant payout. The ABC's careful editorial language — threading the needle between allegation and fact — appears to have been decisive, and may set a harder road for public figures seeking to silence reporting grounded in the public legal record.
Mick Gatto walked into the Victorian Supreme Court last year hoping to extract what he called the maximum payout he could get from the ABC. He left with nothing. On Friday, Justice Andrew Keogh dismissed his defamation case entirely, ruling that the public broadcaster and its two journalists had not defamed him at all.
The dispute centered on a February 2019 article published by the ABC. Gatto claimed it portrayed him as a hitman and murderer, and suggested he had threatened to kill Nicola Gobbo, a barrister-turned-police-informer. He said he initially wanted only an apology. When the ABC did not provide one, he decided to pursue damages instead—the largest sum the law would allow.
But the judge saw the matter differently. The article, Keogh found, had been "entirely accurate." More importantly, it had carefully distinguished between allegations made during legal proceedings and assertions of fact. The ABC had reported what others had said in court without endorsing those claims as true. That distinction mattered. It meant the broadcaster had not defamed Gatto; it had simply documented what was said about him in a public legal forum.
Gatto's barrister, David Klempfner, had argued the article implied his client was one of Australia's most violent criminals, connected to the unsolved 2000 murder of fruiterer Frank Benvenuto and the 2002 murder of Victor Peirce. Keogh acknowledged that Gatto would naturally be unhappy seeing such serious allegations published. But unhappiness at the airing of damaging statements is not the same as defamation. The judge found a "gulf" between what Gatto claimed the article said about him and what it actually said.
When Gatto took the stand during the proceedings, he expressed frustration with his public image. He admitted moving in circles with dangerous men—including hitman Benji Veniamin, whom he killed in self-defense in 2004, and underworld figures like Alphonse Gangitano, Mario Condello, and Lewis Caine. But he pushed back against the characterization. His friends, he said, included not just violent criminals but also politicians, lawyers, high-end builders, and unionists. "Very, very rarely do (the media) write an article about me saying 'colourful businessman'," he told the court. "I'm sick of it."
Keogh was unmoved by the complaint. He described Gatto as "newsworthy and a legitimate subject of public interest"—a phrase that essentially closed the door on any claim that reporting about him was unfair or improper. The judge found that at most, the article had implied reasonable grounds to suspect Gatto had threatened Gobbo or that there were reasonable grounds to investigate him in connection with the two murders. That was a far cry from asserting he had actually done these things.
This is not Gatto's first brush with defamation law. Last year he reached a confidential settlement with the Daily Mail over similar comments. That settlement included an apology and what was described as a "significant" payout, plus $55,000 in legal fees. The ABC case, by contrast, has left him with nothing but a court ruling that the broadcaster's reporting was fair and accurate. It is a signal, perhaps, that judges are increasingly reluctant to second-guess media outlets that carefully distinguish between allegation and fact when reporting on matters of genuine public interest.
Notable Quotes
To the contrary, it carefully recorded that they were no more than allegations that had been made in the course of the proceedings.— Justice Andrew Keogh, on how the ABC distinguished between allegations and assertions
Very, very rarely do (the media) write an article about me saying 'colourful businessman'. I'm sick of it.— Mick Gatto, during testimony about his public image
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did Gatto think he had a case here? The ABC was just reporting what was said in court.
He believed the way they framed it—the selection of which allegations to highlight, the context they chose—amounted to an implication that he actually was a hitman and murderer. But the judge saw it differently. The ABC had been careful to attribute the claims to others.
So the distinction between "he said" and "he did" was the whole ballgame?
Exactly. Once the judge found the article accurately reported statements made during legal proceedings without endorsing them as true, the defamation claim collapsed. You can't sue someone for accurately reporting what was said about you in open court.
Gatto said he wanted an apology first. Why did that matter?
It showed his intent. He wasn't just trying to correct the record—he was trying to extract money. When the ABC refused the apology, he went for damages. The judge may have viewed that escalation as less sympathetic.
He settled with the Daily Mail for a significant amount. Why did that case go differently?
The details of that settlement are confidential, so we don't know exactly what the Mail admitted or what Gatto accepted. But it's possible the Mail chose to settle rather than fight, or that the circumstances were different enough to warrant a different outcome.
What does this mean for underworld figures suing over media coverage?
It suggests the courts will protect fair reporting of legal proceedings, even when the subject is unhappy about it. If you're newsworthy and what's written about you is accurate, being upset about your public image isn't enough to win in court.