ABC News, 31 May 21:
ABC statement on Christian Porter litigation
Christian Porter has decided to discontinue his defamation action against the ABC and Louise Milligan.
All parties have agreed to not pursue the matter any further. No damages will be paid.
The only costs that the ABC will be paying are the mediation costs.
The ABC stands by the importance of the article, which reported on matters of significant public interest, and the article remains online. It has been updated with this Editor’s Note:
On 26 February 2021, the ABC published an article by Louise Milligan.That article was about a letter to the Prime Minister containing allegations against a senior cabinet minister. Although he was not named, the article was about the Attorney-General Christian Porter.
The ABC did not intend to suggest that Mr Porter had committed the criminal offences alleged. The ABC did not contend that the serious accusations could be substantiated to the applicable legal standard – criminal or civil. However, both parties accept that some readers misinterpreted the article as an accusation of guilt against Mr Porter. That reading, which was not intended by the ABC, is regretted.
The ABC stands by our investigative and public interest journalism, which is always pursued in the interests of the Australian community.
The ABC stands by Louise Milligan, one of Australia’s foremost and most awarded investigative journalists, and all our journalists in their independent and brave reporting on matters about which Australians have a right to be informed.
Media contact
Sally Jackson | ABC Communications
ABC response to statements made today by Christian Porter
The 26 February 2021 article remains online without any amendments.
The ABC has not said that it regrets the article. As we have stated, the ABC stands by the importance of the article, which reported on matters of significant public interest. The Editor’s Note says: “(B)oth parties accept that some readers misinterpreted the article as an accusation of guilt against Mr Porter. That reading, which was not intended by the ABC, is regretted.
The ABC has never and still does not accept that the article suggested guilt on the part of Mr Porter. The ABC did not plead a truth defence to the “guilt” meaning that Mr Porter alleged in his statement of claim.
The article was not “sensationalist”. It was an accurate and factual report on a letter that had been sent to the Prime Minister and two other senior politicians.
Communications concerning the mediation started before the commencement of the Dyer v Chrysanthou proceedings. It is simply incorrect to suggest that evidence in that case led the ABC to seek mediation.
Mediations are very common in defamation matters, and it is important that all litigant parties seek to explore potential resolution options when they can – especially so for the ABC as a model litigant.
As a public broadcaster, the ABC considered the payment of mediation costs to be a responsible course of action. The resolution reached avoids further significant legal costs.
In relation other comments and statements that have been made:
The only costs paid by the ABC, apart from its own, were mediation and related costs.
Four Corners EP Sally Neighbour did not “lie” when she tweeted that “‘No money was paid”. Ms Neighbour meant that no money was paid to Mr Porter, which is correct. Ms Neighbour quickly clarified her tweet to say that “No damages were paid”.
The ABC categorically rejects the claim that Louise Milligan “coached” Jo Dyer. The suggestion is not only an insult to Ms Milligan but also to Ms Dyer’s intelligence and integrity.
Despite the assertion in Mr Porter’s filed reply, Ms Milligan did not attempt to speak to Kate before her death. That suggestion is completely untrue.
The ABC has previously published this statement on the Christian Porter litigation:
ABC statement on Christian Porter litigation
Media contact
Sally Jackson | ABC Communications
The Guardian, 2 June 2021:
The ABC rejected an offer from Christian Porter to settle his defamation case weeks before the minister agreed to enter mediation, Guardian Australia can reveal.
The former attorney general has claimed a victory in the high-profile case, but it is understood he originally made an offer for a relatively modest financial settlement without an apology or a retraction of the article.
The offer was rejected by the broadcaster in early May and the two parties entered mediation on Friday 28 May, reaching an agreement on Monday.
It comes as a friend of the woman who made an historical rape allegation against Porter – an allegation he strenuously denies – separately sent the former attorney general a legal concerns notice on Tuesday over comments he made during a press conference which she says “impugned my honesty and integrity”.
Jo Dyer – who brought the case that saw Porter’s star barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC restrained from acting in his now-defunct defamation bid against the ABC – released a statement on Tuesday saying she had sent a legal notice to Porter after the fiery press conference he held after dropping his case against the public broadcaster.
The decision by Porter to drop the case has not ended hostilities between the parties, with a series of back-and-forth jabs over the deal.
Despite the terms of the agreement being confidential, comments by both Porter and the ABC journalist Louise Milligan have raised significant questions about the timing and circumstances of the out-of-court deal.
At his press conference, Porter said the ABC had approached his lawyers “last Friday” for “an urgent mediation”.
“And we agreed, we consented to go to that mediation. That mediation was requested by the ABC,” he said.
That timeline was disputed on Twitter by Milligan, who wrote that it was Porter who had “proposed a settlement first”.
“If he wants to dispute that, happy to refresh his memory and release the terms he offered,” she wrote……
Read the full article here.
The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 June 2021:
The Federal Court will hear a fight over media access to the ABC’s written defence to Christian Porter’s defamation claim, as lawyers for the federal Liberal minister say 27 pages of the document should be removed from the court file…..
The Federal Court heard on Tuesday that the ABC and Mr Porter had agreed as part of mediation talks to seek a court order that 27 pages of the ABC’s 37-page defence to his claim “be permanently removed from the court file”.
The pages in question have been redacted in the publicly-available version of the defence.
The parties also agreed the proceedings would be discontinued with no order as to legal costs. However, no formal notice of discontinuance had been filed on Tuesday, meaning the case is not officially over.
A temporary non-publication order over the 27 pages was made by Justice Jayne Jagot in May, pending a pre-trial application by Mr Porter to strike out those parts of the defence and remove them from the court file.
His lawyers were seeking to rely on Federal Court rules dealing with “scandalous” and “vexatious” material, or material that is “otherwise an abuse of the process”. That application fell away when Mr Porter dropped the case.
Nine Entertainment Co, the publisher of this masthead, and News Corp have briefed a barrister, Dauid Sibtain, to fight the non-publication order and ultimately to access the unredacted defence.
At a hearing in Sydney on Tuesday, Justice Jagot questioned whether the parties could simply agree now for documents to be removed from the court file.
“It doesn’t then become a matter for you about what is to be disclosed or not disclosed,” she told the parties.
Victorian barrister Renee Enbom QC, acting for the ABC, said it was “Mr Porter’s application for an interim suppression order”.
“My clients have done what they were required to do and consent to [an order removing sections of the defence from the court file] ... to the extent that they can consent, but they don’t otherwise wish to be heard or seek to be heard,” she said.
Sydney barrister Barry Dean, acting for Mr Porter, said the agreement to remove the material from the court file was part of a settlement between the parties.
“That’s not the point,” Justice Jagot replied. “There has to be a reason for removal of a document. It’s not just done because a party wants to do it.”
Mr Dean submitted that “orders are made all the time by the consent of the parties”.
“Sure, but not for removal of documents,” Justice Jagot said, adding there was a “fundamental issue” about the integrity of the court file.
Lawyers for Nine, News Corp and Mr Porter will return to court on July 9.
Kangaroo Court of Australia, 5 June 2021:
The Christian Porter v ABC defamation case is far from over with a hearing set down for the 9th of July after the judge refused to rubber-stamp Porter’s attempt to have material removed from the court file and suppressed on a permanent basis. I was also ordered by the court to file and serve all the Attorney-Generals a s78B Notice of a Constitutional matter because I said that I would argue that any tampering with the court file and suppression orders would infringe on the implied freedom of political communication. A copy of the Notice of a Constitutional matter that I filed and served is below……
BACKGROUND
Federal Court of Australia, Christian Porter v ABC Online File at
https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/porter-v-abc
No comments:
Post a Comment