Login
Porter’s defamation barrister to learn fate of legal team
The trial to determine whether Christian Porter’s leading defamation barrister could be removed from his star-studded legal team has been pushed into another day along with a case management hearing at his own proceeding, but the Federal Court made it clear that it wishes to hand down a judgement as soon as possible.
Naomi Neilson
Sydney defamation barrister Sue Chrysanthou may learn as early as Thursday afternoon if she is permitted to continue acting for the former attorney-general in his proceedings against the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) as the Federal Court prepares to wrap up Ms Chrysanthou’s case against Joanne Dyer.
Lawyers for Ms Chrysanthou and Mr Porter submitted that although the barrister had a lawyer-client relationship with Ms Dyer, which ended six days before accepting Mr Porter’s brief, she was not in possession of any confidential knowledge that could be used to the cabinet minster’s advantage during his defamation proceedings.
The originally planned three-day hearing, which began 11 months to the day of AB’s death, has been extended into a fourth day following several interviews with Ms Dyer by the ABC and other material being produced. It meant that lawyers for Mr Porter and Ms Chrysanthou had to request further time to prepare the cross-examinations.
The Honourable Justice Michael Thawley told all parties that his preference is to deliver the judgement “ex tempore”, or on the spot, after closing submissions, which are expected to be delivered tomorrow morning, Thursday, 26 May.
The majority of the cross-examination of Ms Dyer and Macquarie Bank managing director James Hooke held on Wednesday, 26 May was held in a closed court. Prior to its closing, Mr Hooke did disclose that AB was a “very dear friend” and that he heard from Ms Dyer that journalist Louise Milligan was intending to interview her.
The line of questioning before the closing consisted of Mr Porter’s lawyer Christopher Withers SC asking if Mr Hooke had ever been romantically involved with AB. Mr Hooke said he would prefer to answer in closed court and Ms Dyer’s lawyer Michael Hodge QC rejected before it could “descend into the stunt I think it is”.
The court also heard that Ms Dyer believed AB’s intention of coming forward about the alleged rape was to prevent Mr Porter from becoming Prime Minister, with Ms Dyer clarifying that it was “consistent with what she had said would be a small measure of success [if] she was unable to achieve any greater outcome”.
Speaking to media, Mr Porter said on the third day of the proceeding that defamation laws were becoming “more nuanced” and that “once you have the experience inside the system, I think that you learn things that you don’t learn outside the system”.
“And I’m only at the very early stages of being inside that system. But one thing I can guarantee is that the view I took inside the system isn’t going to be the view that emerges outside the system. But that’s something I’ll have to think about on the way through. I don’t think the balance is right at the moment,” he commented.
The proceeding is continuing. More to come.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
