Page:ESafety Commissioner v X Corp.pdf/5

 4 An application by the Commissioner for an urgent interim injunction came before me as duty judge on 22 April 2024. Section 122 of the RP Act confers an express power to make such an injunction.

5 Although counsel appearing by video link announced an appearance for X Corp, he had no formal instructions and had only just received the material. The hearing therefore proceeded on the basis that the Commissioner was applying for the interlocutory injunction ex parte. I granted an injunction, effective until 5.00 pm on 24 April 2024, and listed the matter for further hearing on that day. On 24 April both parties were represented; however, counsel for X Corp informed me that his client needed more time to assemble evidence and provide instructions on the question of interlocutory relief. I extended the injunction to 5.00 pm on 10 May 2024 and listed the matter for further hearing on that day. At the close of argument on 10 May, I extended the injunction until 5.00 pm on Monday 13 May 2024 so that I could consider my decision over the weekend.

6 On the morning of 13 May 2024 I made an order refusing the Commissioner's application for a further extension of the interim injunction. These reasons explain why I concluded that the injunction should not be extended further. I also set out below my reasons for suppression orders that I made during the hearing on 10 May 2024.

The removal notice

7 On the evening of 15 April 2024 Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel (Bishop Emmanuel) was attacked and repeatedly stabbed by a lone assailant while giving a sermon at the Assyrian Christ the Good Shepherd Church in Wakeley, New South Wales. A short video of the attack exists (the stabbing video). The video runs for about 11 seconds. It shows, from a vantage point apparently near the back of the church, the lone assailant rushing at Bishop Emmanuel and attacking him. The assailant raises their right arm and strikes the Bishop several times with a downward motion; the Bishop falls backwards. It is not clear from the video that a knife is being used, although that can be inferred from the motions of the assailant. The shocked and distressed reactions of witnesses can be heard.

8 The Commissioner's officers became aware of social media posts containing the stabbing video. They reached the view that the video was of such a nature that it should be the subject of a removal notice under s 109 and approached major online service providers. Some providers removed URLs containing the stabbing video from their platforms altogether. X Corp did not. eSafety Commissioner v X Corp [2024] FCA 499