Woman hit with six-figure fine after using social media to lay false claim against neighbours
<p>A Queensland woman has been slapped with a nearly $280,000 fine after she falsely branded her neighbours as paedophiles in a post to a local Facebook group.</p>
<p>Zoe Anne Gooding was ordered to pay de facto partners Mianka Rodgers and Michael Usher $200,000 in compensatory damages, $65,000 in aggravated damages and $14,179.32 in interest by the Queensland District Court on June 23 2023 after the couple sued Gooding for defamation in February 2022.</p>
<p>The court heard how much the false claims impacted the couple’s life, including forcing them to abandon their plans to become foster parents.</p>
<p>The $280,000 fine included a $15,000 compensation payment to Usher for Gooding running him over with her car after he sued her, leaving him with a fractured rotor cuff and three broken ribs.</p>
<p>The parties had been neighbours in the close-knit coastal suburb of Bushland Brach in Townsville’s north and had gone to several barbecues and other social gatherings in their peaceful cul-de-sac, where about 50 residents were well acquainted.</p>
<p>In September 2023, Gooding posted to the Bushland Beach Crime Alert group, which had close to 5,000 members, “Paedophile 12 Holbourne Street.”</p>
<p>She then posted two follow-up comments.</p>
<p>“When it’s your kid being touched then you wouldn’t be saying it’s a wild accusation,” she responded to a query.</p>
<p>“We know cos they tried getting our six-year-old to go with them multiple times,” she said in a separate comment.</p>
<p>Several members of the group responded with comments like, “Are the cops doing anything about it?”, “Have they been arrested?” and, “That’s disgusting. Please report to police.”</p>
<p>About 90 minutes after her initial post, Gooding took to the group again claiming she had been “hacked”, writing, “Hi everyone. So looked [sic] like my FB had been hacked. Neighbour just went mental and we were wondering why. Have reset my settings. Apologies.”</p>
<p>Members were sceptical, with one writing, “You put a post up about a paedophile and there [sic] apparent address. Gonna need a bit more explaining than ‘we got hacked’.”</p>
<p>District Court Judge John Coker said it was “noteworthy” that, amid Gooding’s later admission, the statement that she had been hacked was “demonstrably false”.</p>
<p>“It is also clear that the consequences for the first and second plaintiffs has been significant,” he said.</p>
<p>Usher was only made aware of the post after a friend he was with received a text message with a screenshot from the group and showed him.</p>
<p>Rodgers, who was working as a FIFO chef at the Moranbah North Coal Mine found out after she finished her shift and received a message from Usher.</p>
<p>The couple told the court how their “life changed following the defamatory post”, with them fearing leaving home or socialising with neighbours.</p>
<p>Mick did not want to leave the house,” Rodgers said in her affidavit.</p>
<p>“He closed all the curtains and would not go outside to mow the grass. He told me repeatedly that he felt ashamed and embarrassed. He became progressively more withdrawn from communicating with me, his friends and neighbours. Our social life in Holbourne Street stopped dead.”</p>
<p>She noted that she had changed where she goes shopping, travelling an additional 10 to 20km to go to a different Coles where she wouldn’t be recognised.</p>
<p>“The defamatory post has changed me,” she said.</p>
<p>“Whereas I was previously quite an outgoing person, I am now more shy of social interaction. I don’t like telling people about what happened with the defamatory post. Also, I will not touch anybody’s child. Due to the impact of the defamatory post Mick and I have abandoned our plans to become foster parents.”</p>
<p>After launching the defamation proceedings in June 2022, Usher said Gooding struck him twice with her car on Holbourne Street.</p>
<p>“I have been interviewed by the police in respect to the incident and they have advised me that Zoe Gooding has been charged with various offences,” Usher said in his affidavit. “I am awaiting further details of those charges.”</p>
<p>Rodgers added that the pair felt they had “no choice but to take steps to try and restore our reputation as best we could in the circumstances”.</p>
<p>“The allegations made against Mick and I are dreadful and have left a terrible stain on our reputations and on our address,” she explained.</p>
<p>“It is important that people understood clearly that Mick and I are not paedophiles. However, I do not believe that whatever we do we will ever be able to wash the stain away entirely.”</p>
<p>Gooding gave a voluntary admission in April 2022 to confirm she was the sole publisher of the post, leading to a default judgement being entered in July 2022.</p>
<p>The next step was an assessment of damages.</p>
<p>Lawyers for the couple had trouble contacting Gooding, who eventually responded in an email in November 2022 to say she was “currently residing in a women’s shelter in North Brisbane and have no capacity to return to Townsville to attend”.</p>
<p>“I have no assets to my name,” she wrote.</p>
<p>“The only income I receive is $300 per fortnight through family tax benefit $175 of which goes to paying for my accommodation and food. I would be willing to submit the remainder of this as a payment plan for the defendants until the court appointed amount is payed [sic]. To be blunt it was foolhardy of your clients to proceed with the matter as it was known to them that I was poor.”</p>
<p>In the ruling, Judge Coker said the couple’s reputations had been “gravely injured” by Gooding’s conduct and there was “the need for a very real penalty to be imposed in relation to the aggravated nature of the publication”.</p>
<p>“Of particular significance here, is that the subsequent conduct of the defendant in running the second plaintiff over in a motor vehicle, following the institution of these proceedings is evidence, or it can be inferred from it, of the defendant’s improper motivations and intentions,” he said.</p>
<p>“In that regard, the conduct of the defendant, it is said, simply reaffirms the defamatory statement that she made and her actions.”</p>
<p><em>Image credit: Getty</em></p>
