Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

The ruling can’t change the facts of biology, Kirralie Smith insists. Though “very disappointed,” she is looking into the possibility of appealing the decision.

Kirralie Smith has lost her NSW Supreme Court appeal, with the court upholding findings that she unlawfully vilified two men playing in women’s football, leaving her $95,000 damages bill unchanged.

A Local Court had ruled in August that a January 2023 article and a series of online posts featuring publicly-available photos of Stephanie Blanch and Riley Dennis, both of whom compete in NSW women’s football, vilified the pair on the ground that they are transgender.

The case had first been brought before the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which declined to hear it.

Justice Rigg’s judgment, handed down 24 July in the NSW Supreme Court, found Smith had no right of appeal on most of the substance of those findings.

Citing binding precedent from a 2012 Court of Appeal case, the judge also rejected Smith’s argument that the state’s anti-vilification law breaches the constitutional freedom of political communication.

“I am very disappointed,” Kirralie Smith told the Daily Declaration following Friday’s ruling. “Australian law protects males who wish they were women at the expense of women.”

“Men cannot be women,” she said. “No court and no amount of money can override reality.”

Throughout the proceedings, Smith has maintained that she never named, contacted or approached Blanch or Dennis, and that her commentary concerned the integrity of women’s sporting categories and was not intended as an attack on the individuals themselves.

The Local Court disagreed, finding in August 2025 that Smith’s posts — which shared details of the players’ clubs — met the statutory test for vilification under section 38S of the state’s anti-discrimination act. Smith and the organisation she leads, Binary Australia, were ordered to pay Blanch $55,000 and Dennis $40,000, remove the posts, and publish court-ordered notices declaring Smith’s commentary unlawful.

Friday’s decision in the Supreme Court, delivered in response to Smith’s appeal, upheld that ruling.

The Vilification Test

Of the six grounds of appeal Smith raised against the Local Court’s findings, Justice Rigg refused permission to pursue most, ruling that they challenged facts rather than the legal errors the Local Court Act requires for an appeal to proceed.

In one of the rejected grounds, Smith argued the Local Court had misapplied the vilification test in section 38S of the Act, contending an “ordinary person” reading her posts would have been roused to share her concerns about fairness in women’s sport, not to hatred, contempt or ridicule of Blanch or Dennis personally. Justice Rigg affirmed the Local Court’s finding that the relevant audience was not the public at large, as Smith had argued, but her specific social media following.

In another, Smith argued that her posts fell within an exception in the Act for public acts “done reasonably and in good faith… for other purposes in the public interest, including discussion or debate.” Justice Rigg also agreed with the Local Court’s ruling that debating transgender participation in women’s sport falls within this exception, but that Smith’s commentary was “disproportionate” to what the exception allowed.

Relief Narrowed

Smith secured partial relief on the remedies ordered against her, though none of it altered the underlying findings.

The Local Court’s original injunctions barred Smith and Binary Australia from ever again publishing anything identifying Blanch, Dennis or their football clubs. Justice Rigg found these too broad, and issued narrower orders limited to commentary of “the same or similar effect” to what had already been ruled as unlawful.

Justice Rigg upheld the requirement that Smith publish, on her own platforms, a declaration that her posts amounted to unlawful vilification, but reduced how long the notice must remain visible from an indefinite period to three months.

She rejected Smith’s argument that being ordered to publish the declaration amounted to unconstitutional compelled speech.

Justice Rigg also set aside the order that would have doubled Smith’s collective damages bill — from $95,000 to $190,000 — for any non-compliance within 28 days. Section 108(7) of the Act, she found, permits a default penalty only for non-compliance with orders such as injunctions or corrective notices, not for late payment of the damages award itself.

She sent the matter back to the Local Court to recalculate, with a hearing expected in November.

Free Speech Concerns

John Steenhof, principal lawyer at the Human Rights Law Alliance, assessed that the ruling narrows what women’s advocates can safely say in public.

“There is no longer an equal playing field for advocacy on contentious issues,” he said. “The law is being interpreted to censor and silence anyone who speaks out against rainbow activists in public.”

Friday’s decision, he said, “effectively means you can debate the issue in theory, but if you identify real-world examples to illustrate real world consequences, you are in the gun.”

Steenhof argued the legal threshold for vilification remains a challenge for women’s rights advocates.

“The incitement test is extremely low bar,” he said. “It doesn’t require actual intention or even actual incitement. So Kirralie’s genuine intention of advocacy didn’t matter — even though it was accepted that was her aim. This was still [ruled to be] hate speech because it was theoretically capable of inciting hatred.”

He added that the constitutional freedom of political communication had provided Smith no protection. “The High Court’s baby — the implied freedom of political communication — only protects progressive activists, not conservatives,” he said. “Now the only realistic option is the High Court.”

Steenhof also highlighted the size of the damages. “The damages being awarded are getting out of hand,” he said. “Traditional successful vilification claims awarded $3k to $10k max with parties paying their own costs. Now we’re talking $100k penalties. This only encourages activist lawfare.”

“This is all bad for women’s advocacy and for protection of women and children from trans political dogma,” he said.

“Kirralie is a legend. She stood for our wives, our sisters, our daughters. This issue of trans-identifying men encroaching women’s spaces will increasingly impact everyday Australians, and this decision means that defensive shields for resisting this have been weakened.”

A Pattern of Rulings

Friday’s judgment extends a run of adverse findings against Smith arising from the same 2023 conduct. Blanch obtained a two-year apprehended violence order against Smith in the District Court in December 2024, upheld by the Court of Appeal last August over posts the court found amounted to “a sustained campaign of belittling, harassment and intimidation”.

Separately, Blanch and Dennis’s vilification complaints moved from the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal to the Local Court after both sides raised constitutional questions the tribunal had no power to hear.

The Local Court will list the matter for mention on 2 November 2026 to determine the amount payable under section 108(7) should Smith and Binary fail to comply with the corrective notice order.

Smith has previously said she intends to keep advocating against transgender inclusion in women’s sport regardless of the legal outcome.

Steenhof said the outcome should not discourage further advocacy. Though Friday’s ruling “might be discouraging,” he said, “it’s a great time to be alive, and a great time to be running these cases, and God has it under control.”

“It’s time to trust God, lean into speaking truth and to get in behind those with the courage to challenge the brokenness of modern culture.”

Smith told the Daily Declaration that she is looking into an appeal, adding, “Freedom of speech, truth speech, women’s sex based rights and child safeguarding are worth fighting for.”

___

Image via X. A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that Kirralie Smith will appeal the ruling.