I'll sell everything I've got and go all the way
In the long shadow of Melbourne's gangland wars, Mick Gatto has found himself once again contesting not bullets but words — this time in a courtroom where a judge ruled that truth, not reputation, prevailed. Justice Andrew Keogh dismissed Gatto's defamation claim against the ABC, finding the broadcaster's 2019 article entirely accurate in its reporting of statements made during legal proceedings. Gatto, a man who has long occupied the uneasy border between respectability and the underworld, now turns to the appellate courts — not, he insists, for money, but for the story his children will inherit.
- A Victorian Supreme Court judge delivered an unambiguous verdict: the ABC did not defame Mick Gatto, because its article reported what others said in legal proceedings — not what the broadcaster itself alleged.
- Gatto emerged from the ruling visibly stung, insisting the case was never about compensation but about protecting his name and the legacy he leaves behind.
- Standing in Bendigo the day after the ruling, Gatto vowed to appeal — promising to fight 'tooth and nail all the way' and sell everything he owns if necessary.
- The case exposed a complicated portrait: a man who admits associating with hitmen and convicted killers, yet describes them as 'gentlemen' and counts politicians and lawyers among his social circle.
- The appeal will carry broader consequences — testing where the law draws the line between defamation and protected reporting of courtroom statements, with implications for press freedom across Australia.
Mick Gatto left the Victorian Supreme Court on Friday having lost his defamation case against the ABC, and by the following day he was already promising to appeal. Justice Andrew Keogh ruled that the broadcaster's February 2019 article — written by journalists Nino Bucci and Sarah Farnsworth — was entirely accurate and constituted no defamation, finding that the piece had reported statements made by others during legal proceedings rather than asserting its own allegations against Gatto.
Gatto had argued the article implied he was a hitman and murderer, that he had threatened gangland barrister Nicola Gobbo, and that he was connected to the unsolved killings of Frank Benvenuto and Victor Peirce. The judge was unmoved. Speaking to reporters in Bendigo, Gatto was defiant: 'This ain't the end I promise you.' He framed the fight not as one for money but for his name — and for the legacy he would leave his children.
His court testimony had sketched a portrait full of contradictions. He acknowledged associating with some of Melbourne's most dangerous men — including hitman Benji Veniamin, whom he killed in self-defence in 2004 — while insisting his broader world included politicians, lawyers, and respected professionals. Which version of Gatto the ABC's article had captured was the central question the court ultimately answered against him.
It was not his first defamation battle. The year prior, he had settled with The Daily Mail for a confidential sum that included $55,000 in legal fees and a formal apology. That door closed; now he is pushing open another — the appellate process, longer and costlier, but one Gatto says he is prepared to see through to the end.
Mick Gatto walked out of the Victorian Supreme Court on Friday with a loss he says he will not accept. Justice Andrew Keogh had just ruled against him in his defamation case against the ABC, finding the public broadcaster's 2019 article about him was "entirely accurate" and that no defamation had occurred. By Saturday, standing in Bendigo and speaking to reporters, Gatto was already talking about appeal, about fighting "tooth and nail all the way."
The case had centered on a February 2019 article written by journalists Nino Bucci and Sarah Farnsworth. Gatto claimed the piece implied he was a hitman and murderer, that he had threatened to kill gangland barrister Nicola Gobbo, and that he was among Australia's most violent criminals—connected to the unsolved 2000 killing of fruiterer Frank Benvenuto and the 2002 murder of Victor Peirce. Justice Keogh's decision was unambiguous: the ABC had not claimed these things were true; the article had reported statements made by others during legal proceedings. The judge acknowledged Gatto's unhappiness with the publication but found no defamation in the broadcaster's work.
Gatto's response was equally unambiguous. "This ain't the end I promise you," he said. He described himself as "extremely disappointed" and vowed to appeal. But he also reframed what the case had always been about. It was not money, he insisted—it was about clearing his name and protecting the legacy he would leave his children. "I'll sell everything I've got and I'll go all the way," he said, suggesting a willingness to exhaust his resources in pursuit of vindication.
The court record from his testimony the previous July painted a complicated picture. Gatto admitted to associating with dangerous men from the underworld: hitman Benji Veniamin, whom he killed in self-defence in 2004; Alphonse Gangitano; Mario Condello; Lewis Caine. But he had characterized them as "gentlemen" and positioned his social circle as broader and more respectable—politicians, lawyers, high-end builders, unionists. The tension between these two versions of Gatto's world, and which one the ABC's article had captured, was at the heart of the dispute.
This was not Gatto's first defamation battle over similar allegations. The previous year, he had reached a confidential settlement with The Daily Mail, accepting an apology and a "significant" payout that included $55,000 in legal fees. That resolution had closed one door. Now, with the ABC case lost, Gatto was opening another—the appellate process, a longer and more costly road, but one he appeared determined to travel.
Citações Notáveis
This ain't the end I promise you. I'm going to fight it tooth and nail all the way.— Mick Gatto
The defamation case had never been about money, but was instead about pride and clearing his name for his children.— Mick Gatto
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does Gatto think he can win on appeal when the judge found the article entirely accurate?
He's not arguing the facts are false—he's arguing the way they were presented defames him. The judge said the ABC reported what others said in court. Gatto wants to say that's still defamatory, that the selection and framing crossed a line.
But if the statements came from legal proceedings, doesn't that give the ABC protection?
That's the legal question. The ABC has qualified privilege to report on court proceedings. Gatto has to show they abused that privilege somehow—that they went beyond fair reporting into something malicious or reckless.
He settled with The Daily Mail for $55,000. Why not settle with the ABC?
The Mail apologized and paid. The ABC didn't. For Gatto, this became about principle, not money. He said so explicitly—it's about his name and his children's future.
Does he have a realistic chance?
It's hard to say. He admitted in court to knowing all these violent men. The judge found the article accurate. Appeals courts are reluctant to overturn findings on accuracy. But media law is complex, and defamation cases turn on subtle distinctions.
What happens if he loses the appeal?
He's spent enormous resources on a case he's already lost once. He'd have to decide whether to keep fighting or accept the judgment. Either way, the story stays out there—the article, the court ruling, the appeal itself. All of it becomes part of the public record.