Cartoons of the week

 

David Rowe

Cathy Wilcox

Peter Broelman

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST APRIL 2024: Video of oral summary of the judgment as delivered by Justice Lee in the failed defamation suit, Lehrmann v Network Ten & Anor, as well as a link to the full written judgment transcript

 

The Guardian YouTube web page, 15 April 2024:

 

Note: The delivery of this judgment is broken by technical difficulties at 4:37mins into the video and recommences where broken delivery left off at 39:22mins into the video and continues uninterrupted to the end of proceedings.

The Guardian online, 15 April 2024:

Bruce Lehrmann has lost his defamation case against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson, bringing to an end a sprawling legal saga which has gripped the nation. In a live oral summary that took two and a half hours, Justice Michael Lee said the former Liberal staffer was not defamed by Wilkinson and Ten when The Project broadcast an interview with Brittany Higgins on Monday 15 February 2021 in which she alleged she was raped in Parliament House. He found that on the balance of probabilities Lehrmann raped Higgins on the minister’s couch in Parliament House in 2019. 

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

At Page 145 of the judgment transcript:

600. Notwithstanding the need for pause, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that Mr Lehrmann’s state of mind was such that he was so intent upon gratification to be indifferent to Ms Higgins’ consent, and hence went ahead with sexual intercourse without caring whether she consented. This conclusion is not mandated by, but is consistent with, my finding that intercourse commenced when Ms Higgins was not fully cognitively aware of what was happening.

At Page 150 of the judgment transcript:

VI Conclusion on Rape

620. Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins.

621. I hasten to stress; this is a finding on the balance of probabilities. This finding should not be misconstrued or mischaracterised as a finding that I can exclude all reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence. As I have explained, there is a substantive difference between the criminal standard of proof and the civil standard of proof and, as the tribunal of fact, I have only to be reasonably satisfied that Mr Lehrmann has acted as I have found, and I am not obliged to reach that degree of certainty necessary to support conviction upon a criminal charge.

At Page 290 of the judgment transcript:

1071. Mr Lehrmann behaved disgracefully. He defended the criminal charge on a false basis, lied to police, and then allowed that lie to go uncorrected before the jury. He instructed his unwitting and hence blameless senior counsel to cross-examine a complainant of sexual assault, in two legal proceedings, on a knowingly false premise.

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369 as a written 324-page transcript can be found at:

https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/lehrmann#103

and is also published in easily searchable form at:

https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2024/369.html

Cartoons of the Week

 

Cathy Wilcox

David Pope

Mark David

Australian Prime Minister & Liberal MP for Cook, Scott Morrison, goes into battle against the "Evil One" just in time for the forthcoming federal election campaign

Scott John Morrison has a Facebook account Scott Morrison (ScoMo), two Twitter accounts, @ScottMorrisonMP (created on 22 April 2009 when he was an Opposition backbencher, blue ticked, 606.9k followers) and The PMO (created March 2017 in anticipation perhaps, blue ticked, 20.5k followers) and an Instagram account, scottmorrisonmp (285k followers).

The first social media account is not accessible to me because I am not a Facebook member, the second is not accessible to me because years prior to becoming Australian prime minister Scott Morrison chose to block any access by me to his personal Twitter account (an act I still find baffling), the third has not been actively tweeting since 2019 and the fourth is not fully accessible to be because I am not an Instagram member. 

Like the vast majority of social media accounts held by the Australian population, Morrison's own Twitter accounts are classified as engaging in ordinary tweet activity by Bot Sentinel. Just like GetUp! and @GreenpeaceAP.

Scott Morrison uses all four social media accounts as vehicles for his constant self-promotion and relentless electioneering.

However, he is apparently dissatisfied with social media. He believes it is being used by "the Evil One".

This is Prime Minster Morrison during an ACC (Pentecostal) Convention on the Gold Coast, Queensland in April 2021:

At 14:10mins he begins to 'preach' against social media and suggests it is being "used by the Evil One" as a weapon.

I'm not sure exactly what he was referring to at that point. However, I note that at last count Scott Morrison has 215 nicknames and descriptive political terms applied to him by the general public on Twitter and I seem to recall at least one account parodying him.

Seven months later on Monday 28 November 2021 this was Scott Morrison in in a joint media release with Attorney-General Michaelia Cash:

Combatting online trolls and strengthening defamation laws

In a world-leading move, the Morrison Government will introduce new court powers to force global social media giants to unmask anonymous online trolls and better protect Australians online.

The reforms will be some of the strongest powers in the world when it comes to tackling damaging comments from anonymous online trolls and holding global social media giants to account.

The reforms will ensure social media companies are considered publishers and can be held liable for defamatory comments posted on their platforms. They can avoid this liability if they provide information that ensures a victim can identify and commence defamation proceedings against the troll.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the rules that exist in the real world should exist online too.

“Social media can too often be a cowards’ palace, where the anonymous can bully, harass and ruin lives without consequence,” the Prime Minister said.

“We would not accept these faceless attacks in a school, at home, in the office, or on the street. And we must not stand for it online, on our devices and in our homes.

“We cannot allow social media platforms to provide a shield for anonymous trolls to destroy reputations and lives. We cannot allow social media platforms to take no responsibility for the content on their platforms. They cannot enable it, disseminate it, and wash their hands of it. This has to stop.

“These will be some of the strongest powers to tackle online trolls in the world.

“Anonymous trolls are on notice, you will be named and held to account for what you say. Big tech companies are on notice, remove the shield of anonymity or be held to account for what you publish.

“In a free society with free speech, you can't be a coward and attack people and expect not to be held accountable for it.”

The reforms will give victims of defamatory online comments two ways to unmask trolls and resolve disputes.

First, global social media platforms will be required to establish a quick, simple and standardised complaints system that ensures defamatory remarks can be removed and trolls identified with their consent. This recognises that Australians often just want harmful comments removed.

Second, a new Federal Court order will be established that requires social media giants to disclose identifying details of trolls to victims, without consent, which will then enable a defamation case to be lodged.

Importantly, the reforms will also ensure everyday Australians and Australian organisations with a social media page are not legally considered publishers and cannot be held liable for any defamatory comments posted on their page, providing them with certainty.

Attorney-General Michaelia Cash said this was in response to the Voller High Court case, which made clear that Australians who maintain social media pages can be ‘publishers’ of defamatory comments made by others on social media—even if the page owner does not know about the comments.

“Since the High Court’s decision in the Voller case, it is clear that ordinary Australians are at risk of being held legally responsible for defamatory material posted by anonymous online trolls,” the Attorney-General said.

“This is not fair and it is not right. Australians expect to be held accountable for their own actions, but shouldn’t be made to pay for the actions of others that they cannot control.

“The reforms will make clear that, in defamation law, Australians who operate or maintain a social media page are not ‘publishers’ of comments made by others.”

The Attorney General said the package of reforms would complement the defamation reforms currently being progressed in partnership with states and territories, and sit alongside the Government’s commitment to improving online safety.

“Social media providers should bear their fair share of responsibility for defamatory material published on their platforms,” the Attorney-General said. ‘This reflects the current law.’

“However, if defamatory comments are made in Australia, and social media providers help victims contact the individuals responsible, it is appropriate they have access to a defence.”

These new powers build on the Morrison Government’s other world-leading reforms, from establishing the eSafety Commissioner, to legislating the new Online Safety Act, to drafting new online privacy laws and securing support for global action to be discussed at the G20 in Indonesia in 2022.

An exposure draft of the legislation will be released in the coming week. This will provide all Australians, the industry, states, territories and stakeholders to have their say on these important new laws.

[Ends]

On Wednesday 1 December 2021 - the second to last sitting day of the parliamentary year - Morrison released the exposure draft of "Social Media (Anti Trolling) Bill 2021" which can be found here.

Having decided to release this draft the Morrison Government needed to collect its political guns and ammunition to be used in defence of the over reach contained within the bill's 28 pages.

So it was serendipitous to say the least that at 9:42 am on the same day the Government announced in the House of Representatives its intention to establish a Select Committee on Social Media and Online Safety to inquire into the range of online harms that may be faced by Australians on social media and other online platforms, including harmful content or harmful conduct. This inquiry to be held during the parliamentary recess and its report due at the start of the 2022 parliamentary year. 

A year during which the Australian Parliament will sit for only 10 days until August 2022 when a full calendar is expected to recommence.

Porter v ABC court case not quite over yet - there are now three parties requesting access to unredacted ABC written defence documents which Porter wants removed from court files

 

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

Cartoons of the Week

 

Cathy Wilcox

McToons

David Pope

Cartoon of the Week

Cathy Wilcox

QAnon conspiracy theories end up in the Federal Court of Australia

The Guardian, 29 August 2020:

In May, Anne Webster, a first-term Nationals MP from Mildura in regional Victoria, quietly launched a defamation action in the federal court over a series of posts and videos about her on social media site Facebook. 

According to a statement of claim seen by Guardian Australia, posts made about the federal MP in April claimed, without any factual basis, that she was “a member of a secretive pedophile network” who had been “parachuted into parliament to protect a past generation of pedophiles”. 

Within weeks of the case being filed, Justice Michael Wheelahan made urgent orders for the defendant to remove the posts, labelling them “vile” and describing the legal action as “one of those exceptional cases” where the court could order the removal of the allegedly defamatory material before a trial. 

“Given the potency of the allegations [in the] online posts, the scandal created may well reach quarters that cannot be known … this is one of those rare cases where damages may not be an adequate remedy,” Wheelahan said. 

Webster’s case was filed against a woman named Karen Brewer, an Australian who the court believes may now live in New Zealand. Though she is basically unknown outside of the online communities in which she spends much of her time, Brewer – which may not be her real name – is one of Australia’s leading conspiracy agitators. 

Brewer’s personal Facebook page, which has thousands of followers, is a petri dish of beguiling theories and vicious abuse. In the steady stream of live videos and posts she feeds to her thousands of followers each day, Brewer rails against vaccinations, fluoride, and the cabal of Freemasons she believes controls Australia’s parliament, judiciary, media and bureaucracy as part of an extensive paedophile protection racket....

Though Australia’s conspiracy landscape is complex, increasingly the thread that unites these groups is a messy Antipodean adaption of QAnon, a sprawling and baseless internet conspiracy theory born in the online messaging board 4chan in 2017. 

Wide-ranging and preternaturally bewildering, QAnon adherents are loosely tied to the belief that, as the Guardian put it this week, “a cabal of Satan-worshipping Democrats, Hollywood celebrities and billionaires run the world while engaging in pedophilia, human trafficking and the harvesting of a supposedly life-extending chemical from the blood of abused children”. 

Evangelical in its zeal, adherents believe a multitude of spin-off theories, including that Bill Gates is using Covid-19 to implant microchips in people and that the ongoing lockdown in Victoria is a cover for the premier, Daniel Andrews, to install 5G technology throughout the state. 

Though Brewer is not outwardly affiliated with QAnon, many of her beliefs line up with the conspiracy. Webster’s defamation claim, which also includes her husband and a not-for-profit women’s organisation called Zoe Support Australia that they founded together in Mildura, alleges the posts falsely accused the couple of founding the women’s organisation to “access young children on behalf of a secretive pedophilia network”.

To date, social media companies have had little success controlling the growth of QAnon on their platforms.

Last week, Facebook announced it had taken down or restricted 790 groups, 1,500 ads and 100 pages tied to QAnon, and blocked more than 300 hashtags used by its followers on Facebook and Instagram. It followed Twitter’s announcement of a broad crackdown on about 150,000 accounts linked to the conspiracy in July.

Advertisement

But those steps have had little effect. On Twitter, QAnon followers successfully hijacked a save the children hashtag after the purge and in Australia the Guardian noticed little if any impact on local QAnon groups after Facebook’s crackdown.

In fact, a recent report by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue found QAnon’s following was growing considerably in Australia.

“We found that the US was consistently the largest QAnon content-producing country, followed by the UK, Canada and Australia,” the report stated.

Though most of QAnon’s lore is specifically catered to a US audience (QAnon’s followers believe the US president, Donald Trump, is secretly working to thwart the network of paedophiles and their “deep state” collaborators), its inherent adaptability means it’s capable of hoovering up pre-existing conspiracy theories into its swirling illogic.....

Coalition shields firebrand MP Craig Kelly from censure for spreading Covid misinformation

Read moreIn Australia, its adherents have had no trouble retrofitting the theory to suit our politics.....

Karen Brewer
Snapshot taken from a YouTube video
30 August 2020

On 19 May 2020 there was a hearing in the matter of Webster v Brewer (No 2) [2020] FCA 727.

There was no appearance at that hearing by counsel for 52 year-old Ms. Brewer.

The Court accepted that Ms. Brewer had been properly notified of the hearing date, court details and had received the statement of claim & revised statement of claim.

On 19 May the Court reaffirmed Orders of 8 May - the following is an excerpt from those Orders.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 

PENAL NOTICE TO: 

KAREN BREWER IF YOU (BEING THE PERSON BOUND BY THIS ORDER): (A) REFUSE OR NEGLECT TO DO ANY ACT WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED IN THIS ORDER FOR THE DOING OF THE ACT; OR 
(B) DISOBEY THE ORDER BY DOING AN ACT WHICH THE ORDER REQUIRES YOU NOT TO DO, YOU WILL BE LIABLE TO IMPRISONMENT, SEQUESTRATION OF PROPERTY OR OTHER PUNISHMENT. 

ANY OTHER PERSON WHO KNOWS OF THIS ORDER AND DOES ANYTHING WHICH HELPS OR PERMITS YOU TO BREACH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER MAY BE SIMILARLY PUNISHED. 

 IN THESE ORDERS: 

 a) the respondent’s Facebook account is accessible at the URL address ‘https://www.facebook.com/karen.spiers.336’. 
b) the “First Post” is the post uploaded to the respondent’s Facebook account on or about 26 April 2020 at 6.21am. 
c) the “First Video” is the video post uploaded to the respondent’s Facebook account on or about 26 April 2020 at 2.01pm. 
d) the “Second Post” is the post uploaded to the respondent’s Facebook account on or about 27 April 2020 at 5.14am. 
e) the “Second Video” is the video uploaded to the respondent’s Facebook account on or about 30 April 2020 at 6.13pm. 
f) the “Third Post” is the post uploaded to the respondent’s Facebook account on or about 8 May 2020 at 5.42am. 
g) the “Third Video” is the video uploaded to the respondent’s Facebook account on or about 8 May 2020 at 6.00am. 
h) the “Fourth Video” is the video uploaded to the respondent’s Facebook account on or about 8 May 2020 at 7.44am.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 

Upon the applicants giving the usual undertaking as to damages (see Practice Note GPN-UNDR), until further order, the respondent by herself or by her servants or agents, or howsoever, be restrained from publishing or causing to be published in any form, or maintaining online for downloading, or uploading so as to make available for publication online: 
a)the First Post; 
b) the First Video; 
c) the Second Post; 
d) the Second Video; 
e) the Third Post; 
f) the Third Video; 
g) the Fourth Video; and any other matter to the same purport or effect as any of the above matters to the extent that such other matters identify the applicants, whether expressly or by implication.