Newly elected Liberal MP Anthony Marsh alleged Safety Beach retiree Joe Lenzo harassed him with repeated emails, mocking language and the nickname “Marshy” during Marsh’s time as mayor. Marsh later withdrew the case after winning Nepean. The court made no final order.
Anthony Marsh withdrew a personal safety intervention order case against Safety Beach retiree Joe Lenzo after winning the Nepean by-election.
Marsh alleged Lenzo harassed him with repeated emails while Marsh served as mayor of Mornington Peninsula Shire.
But the case raises a bigger question.
Was this about personal safety, or did a political candidate use the courts to limit criticism during an election campaign?
Marsh’s own application stated:
THE EMAILS ARE FREQUENT, ESCALATING AND PERSONALISED, AND INCLUDE MOCKING LANGUAGE AND DEROGATORY NICKNAMES (INCLUDING REFERRING TO ME AS ‘MARSHY’)
Marsh also alleged Lenzo used references to the “Toxic Six”, claims of dictatorship or corruption, caricatures, mocking imagery and repeated challenges to his integrity and motives.
But that context cuts both ways.
As mayor, Marsh was the public face of Mornington Peninsula Shire Council. Residents with concerns about council decisions, governance and conduct would reasonably direct criticism to the mayor and other councillors.
Marsh did not only ask the court to stop direct contact.
His application sought orders that would stop Lenzo publishing any material about him by internet, email or other electronic communication. It also sought to stop Lenzo contacting or communicating with him by any means.
The court granted an interim order.
The court made no final order.
Marsh later withdrew the case.
Blunt Emails, Political Content
Documents reviewed by STPL News show Lenzo’s emails were blunt, mocking and clearly unwanted.
They also show many emails dealt with council business.
Lenzo sent many of them to all councillors. The emails covered municipal monitors, donation transparency, beach raking, rates, tourism charges, councillor conduct and local government reporting.
One email criticised the defeat of Cr David Gill’s donation-transparency motion and referred to a $18,272.64 donation via NATANT GROUP Pty Ltd linked to Marsh.
Another email circulated reporting about the Victorian Government appointing two municipal monitors to Mornington Peninsula Shire Council. Lenzo wrote that the “Toxic Six” would now be “under scrutiny”.
The emails were not polite.
But they were political.
Lenzo Said The Case Restricted Debate
Lenzo’s court response put the issue directly.
He argued Marsh’s application arose during public commentary about local governance while Marsh was seeking public office.
He said the proceeding restricted his ability to take part in that public discussion during the election period.
Lenzo did not present that as a final finding. He put it forward as context for the court to consider.
That is the heart of the matter.
Public officials can seek protection from genuine harassment.
But a political candidate seeking orders to stop a critic publishing material online during an election campaign raises a democratic issue.
Marsh Had Engaged Before Escalating
Marsh’s application said he first attempted reasonable engagement before later disengaging.
Documents show Marsh responded to at least some earlier emails.
In one November exchange, Lenzo circulated an STPL News article about a reader poll on local leadership confidence. Lenzo wrote that public opinion was “catching up with the toxic six”.
Marsh replied:
Thanks for the positive contribution…
Luckily, we live in the real world
The exchange reads as political sparring over local leadership criticism, not just a private dispute.
In another email, Lenzo sent a message headed “FROM THE TOXIC SIX” about council’s beach-raking plan. Marsh replied: “Will discuss shortly.”
Minutes later, Marsh replied again: “The irony of calling us toxic…”
Those replies do not settle the legal issue.
But they show the communication history had more than one side.
Claims Never Tested
Lenzo argued Marsh failed to provide the detail and supporting material needed to test the allegations.
His court response said Marsh had been directed to provide a summary of the allegations, including the time, date and place of each alleged incident, along with the material relied upon.
Lenzo said Marsh failed to comply, leaving him unable to properly understand or answer the case.
The case never reached a contested final hearing.
The court never tested the allegations.
The court made no findings against Lenzo.
Lenzo said Marsh withdrew the application on 7 May 2026.
The sequence and timing of events are matters the public is entitled to consider for itself.
The Question
This case is not about whether Lenzo annoyed Marsh.
He clearly did.
It is not about whether public figures should tolerate harassment.
They should not.
The issue is whether Marsh’s response went too far.
Marsh could have blocked emails. He could have ignored them. He could have relied on council processes.
Instead, he sought court orders that would have stopped a local critic publishing material about him online during an election campaign.
Then, after winning Nepean, Marsh withdrew the case.
The court made no final order.
The court made no findings.
That leaves one serious question on the public record: was this a genuine personal safety matter, or legal overreach against political criticism?
