A judge has denied former Attorney-General Christian Porter access to material about a crucial meeting involving Jo Dyer, the friend of a woman who accused him of rape, which he sought to bolster his appeal of the removal of silk Sue Chrysanthou from his now-settled defamation case against the ABC.
In an interlocutory hearing on Wednesday, Federal Court Justice John Middleton set aside a notice to produce aimed at Dyer for unredacted affidavit material put on by her friend James Hooke about a meeting on November 20, 2020 between Dyer, Hooke, Chrysanthou and barrister Matthew Richardson.
The judge found the material Porter sought, which also included any other documents relevant to the November 20 meeting, was not relevant to the appeal because it had not been seen by Justice Thomas Thawley before he handed down his May judgment restraining Chrysanthou from acting for Porter in the defamation dispute.
“I am not persuaded at least on the material before me … that the matters now raised assume importance in the running of the appeal even by reference to an alleged error the trial judge made… If error there is, this will be demonstrated by reference to the record already before the court,” Justice Middleton said.
Porter’s appeal, filed in June, challenges Justice Thawley’s judgment on various grounds, including alleged errors relating to the admission and reliance on evidence by Hooke about what was said at the November 20 meeting.
Porter will also be seeking to adduce new evidence in the appeal relating to a brief held by former Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson SC for Dyer, which was returned before Gleeson was retained by the ABC in the defamation case.
Justice Thawley found that Chrysanthou had received confidential information during the meeting with Dyer in November last year, some of which was relevant to Porter’s defamation case, and said she should return the Porter brief. The judge later ordered Porter and Chrysanthou to foot Dyer’s legal bill, saying Dyer had been “wholly successful” in having Chrysanthou removed from the case.
The former Attorney-General’s appeal also includes a challenge to the decision by Justice Thawley to substantially redact text messages between ABC journalist Annabelle Crabb and Dyer.
Days after Justice Thawley’s ruling, Porter dropped his lawsuit against the ABC and journalist Louise Milligan. The case centered on an article in February that revealed the existence of a dossier by Dyer’s friend detailing the alleged rape by Porter and reported that a senior cabinet minister had been accused of rape. The article did not name Porter but he claimed he was easily identifiable.
According to Dyer’s lawsuit, Chrysanthou reviewed a concerns notice sent to The Australian in November, claiming that an opinion piece by columnist Janet Albrechtsen had defamed her. Dyer, director of the Adelaide Writers’ Week, appeared on an episode of Four Corners earlier that month, which aired allegations against Porter of compromising behaviour towards women. The episode was broadcast three months before the ABC published the article that Porter alleged defamed him.
Last month Porter stepped down from the federal cabinet as Minister for Industry, Science and Technology after refusing to reveal information about an anonymous donor that covered a portion of his costs in pursuing the defamation proceedings.
In the appeal, Porter is represented by Callan O’Niell, instructed by Company (Giles). Dyer is represented by Dr Shipra Chordia, instructed by Marque Lawyers. Chrysanthou is represented by Jessie McKenzie, instructed by Kennedys.
The defamation proceedings are Charles Christian Porter v Australian Broadcast Corporation & Anor. Dyer’s lawsuit is Joanne Elizabeth Dyer v Sue Chrysanthou & Anor. The appeal is Charles Christian Porter v Joanna Elizabeth Dyer & Anor.
Copyright Lawyerly Media. Unauthorised reproduction or distribution of this article is prohibited.
A reprint licence is required to reproduce or distribute this article. Contact Us for a reprint licence.