ABC
News,
31 May 21:
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
