Great news! Wonderful and deserved outcome for Moira Deeming.
I've just skimmed through the judgment, and am looking forward to putting my feet up and savouring every delicious line, but this stood out:
557 I have no hesitation in saying that Mr Pesutto’s evidence at paragraph 45 of his first affidavit is untrue. Having said, on oath, that “in the circles in which I moved including the more mainstream parts of the community I was trying to attract to support the Party (in my view, the vast majority), Mrs Deeming had a bad reputation, particularly for giving succour to hateful and/or extreme social or political views”, when pressed about the allegation, he was unable to provide a skerrick of evidence to support it. That is a shameful state of affairs,
This looks like legalise for '...pants on fire', and is barely 'polite', as a PP described the judgment. It flatly, and 'without hesitation' says that Pesutto's evidence given under oath is untrue. So - lying, right?
Note to self: google 'skerrick'