This week, the Attorney General Christian Porter, as part of his ongoing attempt to sue the ABC for defamation, applied for suppression orders so that the ABC wouldn't be allowed to publish what their defence is.
Porter's case which follows from reportage which the ABC did months ago, alleges that he has been defamed by the ABC when they reported that a cabinet minister was the subject of an historical rape case. What makes this odd is that not only did the ABC not publish the name of the then unknown cabinet minister but contemporary social media posts of the day prove that the general public had no idea who it was. The only reason why anyone knew who it was was because in a strange turn on events, a Liberal Party MP had a fit of conscience and then outed himself in a press conference. This anomaly was quickly resolved and he returned to the usual pattern of graft and knavery and launched the defamation case.
I suspected at the time that the ABC's strategy for defending the case would have been that at the time, Billy Brown from Sydney Town going home on the Bankstown train would have been unlikely to make the connection because until recently, nobody knew or cared who Christian Porter is. It is exceptionally difficult to be defamed if you have virtually no fame in the first place. I would have argued that the only reason why Christian Porter is remotely famous now is because he is that knave who is suing the ABC.
Moreover, given that the original article published by the ABC did not name the plaintiff, then not only must the precise words said to have been written or spoken must also be pleaded but the plaintiff must also plead "those extrinsic facts said to give rise to the defamatory imputation, and set out how persons knowing these would have understood the publication to refer to the plaintiff": Collins v Jones [1955] 1 QB 564.
The problem with applying for suppression orders is that not only does this highlight the case even further but given the seriousness of the origin reportage of the ABC, it now makes me think that something even more serious had been going on.
We already know for instance that Britney Higgins who was a former staffer within the parliament was raped within the walls of Parliament House in Canberra and the perpetrator has been mysteriously protected. We also know of at least another rape case within the building; also involving other Liberal Party staff members.
In Porter's case it has been brought to light that the victim has subsequently died and that at the time the NSW Police did not investigate it. Actually bringing a criminal case to court on those matters is materially impossible now. That is of itself serious.
What Christian Porter applying for suppression orders does in this defamation case is effectively turn the proceedings into a de facto star chamber; which is apt given the Prime Minister Scott Morrison's refusal to hold an inquiry, which means that the defamation case is itself a de facto inquiry.
I personally think that these suppression orders fail the suggested tests which the court would apply in granting them. Porter asking for suppression orders is after the fact and not part of the material of the case. I think that it fails even basic questioning.
Are the suppression orders in the interest of national security?
No. At least not unless Christian Porter has matters of an even more critical international outrage which is currently undiscovered.
Are the suppression orders needed to protect the safety of witnesses?
No. At least not unless Christian Porter genuinely fears an angry mob.
Are the suppression orders needed to guarantee a fair trial?
No.
I do not know if it is beneficial or not for the public broadcaster to make public their defence or not but I do know that a Minister of the Crown applying for suppression orders, looks very much like an attempt to destroy justice for personal gain. This neither passes the pub test nor the sniff rest. This is the equivalent of leaving a maggoty piece of meat on the counter of the pub and telling the patrons to eat it. It's not sane or sanitary.
My suspicion is that the ABC has something material in its possession, which is irrefutable, and which if it came out would actually damage the reputation of Christian Porter. Again we come back to the "The Tell-Tale Heart" by Edgar Allan Poe where one's own Mens Rea is the thing that convicts. I personally think that it is in the public interest to see the ABC’s defence because if the defence is suppressed then in all honesty, then this is inconsistent with Porter's 13 pages of allegation of conduct re the ABC and Louise Milligan.
I also have questions about who exactly is funding Christian Porter's legal fees which are said to be something in the order of $20,000 per day. Firstly there is the question about why the Attorney General is using the courts to run personal vendetta against an organisation to which he is personally ideologically opposed to.
Second there is the more serious issue of a Minister of the Crown taking undeclared benefits from an unnamed donor. Quite apart from the actual points of order within either the historical rape case which is never going to be investigated, or the vexatious defamation case which he is running, how is taking undisclosed benefits not of interest to the people of the Commonwealth? I am not saying that Christian Porter dies not have the right to defend his name and reputation but we the people of the Commonwealth who are his employer have a public interest to know whether or not our paid representatives are on the take or not.
Also see: Horse 2818 - https://rollo75.blogspot.com/2021/03/horse-2818-christian-porters-defamation.html
Addenda:
"Because of this action and the potential conflicts that could arise, my client had to step aside as Attorney-General. This is of the most urgent nature."
- Sue Chrysanthou SC, acting for Christian Porter, 7th May 2021.
Problems:
1. Christian Porter never stood aside. In fact, he refused to stand aside and was removed from the portfolio by the Prime Minister Scott Morrison.
2. Christian Porter was the one who chose to launch defamation proceedings. Those are his actions and he stated that he knew that that there was a potential conflict of interest when he did it. That is on record and is materially the matter of fact which caused his removal from the portfolio and the Cabinet reshuffle by the Prime Minister Scott Morrison.
3. This is the problem with the Offence of perjury in the Crimes Act.
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s327.html
327 Offence of perjury
(1) Any person who in or in connection with any judicial proceeding makes any false statement on oath concerning any matter which is material to the proceeding, knowing the statement to be false or not believing it to be true, is guilty of perjury and liable to imprisonment for 10 years.
- Section 327, Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
Perjury only applies to people under oath; which does not apply to counsel. Silks are actually allowed to tell lies in court... these are two... in one sentence.
No comments:
Post a Comment