A Launceston woman has been awarded $5000 after it was found that a Facebook post claiming she had a sexual relationship with her cat was defamatory.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Jessica Dannielle Hoyle, 36, took legal action after an administrator of the Chit-Chat Launceston Facebook page Zac Saunders posted that: "the woman [Ms Hoyle] (and I wish I was joking) sexually abuses her pets."
"Her 'man' is actually her pet cat and she has confirmed with people I know very well and I have heard her personally say that she has a sexual and spiritual relationship with her pets," the post said.
Magistrate Simon Brown assessed damages for distress caused and damage to Hoyle's reputation at $5000.
However, he found that several other imputations in the Facebook post were true including one that Ms Hoyle had threatened Mr Saunders when he disrupted campaigning for controversial One Nation political candidate Steve Mav.
The court heard that Mr Saunders attended a Mav rally beside a highway dressed as a masked character AnAnnonimo Bro.
"He said she became very angry and abused him and that she physically attacked him," Mr Brown said.
"This evidence was not challenged - not surprisingly after the claimant's interjection in court 'That was you'."
He found that Ms Hoyle posted on Facebook that she would pay $500 if someone beat up Annonimo Bro.
The Facebook post came after Ms Hoyle organised an All Lives Matter gathering in Civic Square on June 6, 2020 - a response to Black Lives Matter rallies across America and around the world.
Mr Saunders posted six paragraphs which Mr Brown found was largely made up of protected political communication and truthful allegations.
It was taken down after a couple of hours.
"It related to attendance at a somewhat controversial gathering, one close to the claimant's heart," he said.
"She is not to be compensated in relation to the majority of the content of the post and the upset and damage it caused."
Mr Brown said the allegation that the claimant [Ms Hoyle] was defamed by the assertion that she sexually abuses her cat was made out.
"The defendant [Mr Saunders] pleaded truth as a defence to these allegations. He bears the onus to establish that. I do not accept that he honestly believed this to be true either," Mr Brown's decision said.
During the case evidence was heard from several witnesses that Ms Hoyle attended a Hens night at Mr Saunders' family home in 2014 where a plastic penis was being handed around and drinks were being had.
During the night several attendees participated in a risque game in which they divulged their "most outrageous sexual encounter" .
Witnesses said that Ms Hoyle suggested that her cat was her man.
In her evidence Ms Hoyle conceded that she "may have made up some BS" because she did not have a man and could not share any sexual experiences with men because she had not had any.
Mr Brown said he concluded that Ms Hoyle was joking because she was trying to fit in.
"The claimant impressed me as a very unsophisticated person and to be blunt a somewhat unusual person of very limited vistas," Mr Brown said
"I have no difficulty accepting her evidence that she embellished her love for her cat at the event.
"Plainly at least some of those present treated her remarks very seriously."
However, he said that allegation that a person indulged in sexual activity with a domestic pet was a serious one which amounted to criminal behaviour.
"I am entirely persuaded to accept her denial of the allegation. Her joke seems to have fallen very flat indeed with several people present," he said.
"To present that as an admission to committing such acts was defamatory."
Mr Brown said the defendant struck him as a very intelligent, singularly bright and very quick witted young man albeit one who cynically lighted on Ms Hoyle's words to advance his agendas.
Ms Hoyle's lawyer James Kitto sought damages of $50,000 saying that it damaged her reputation and business as a poodle breeder.
In assessing damages Mr Brown said that Facebook responses to the post showed that the claimant [Ms Hoyle] did not enjoy an unsullied reputation in the community.
He said the bestiality assertion in the post was "so bizarre and unusual as to likely cause many reasonable and sensible people to have real doubts about its reliability".
"At the end of the day this is a minor matter albeit one which has sadly taken a deal of judicial time and resources by reason of its unusual nature and the complexities of the issues raised in defamation actions," he said.
"Doing the best I can I assess damages for distress caused and damage to her reputation at $5000," Mr Brown said.
A second defendant named in the action Yasmin McMahon was found not to have had any knowledge of the post and was not an administrator at the time.
Mr Brown found several other imputations of defamation failed.
Nick Clark
I am the Supreme and Magistrates Court reporter for the Examiner for the past 18 months. My journalism career has clicked over 30 years and encompasses four different spells at Tasmanian newspapers.
I am the Supreme and Magistrates Court reporter for the Examiner for the past 18 months. My journalism career has clicked over 30 years and encompasses four different spells at Tasmanian newspapers.
