Christian Porter has discontinued his defamation case against the ABC and reporter Louise Milligan for coverage of historical rape allegations. For the friends of Kate, Porter’s alleged victim, the ending is bittersweet.
Although the ABC won’t have to spend truckloads of finite resources defending itself, Kate’s friends and supporters won’t have to defend her name against harsh lawyers, and Porter won’t have to crowdfund legal fees, it also means the information the ABC has to support its truth defence stays secret while an independent inquiry into his suitability to remain in Parliament remains unannounced.
Suppressed information
Early into the defamation case, the public was already being robbed of detail. Most of the ABC’s 37-page defence was redacted at Porter’s lawyers’ request. They also tried to block a key affidavit from Macquarie Bank managing director James Hooke and lost — although the affidavit has still not been released. Other media organisations are pursuing a legal case to get the defence released.
Kate’s childhood friend and former Liberal candidate Jeremy Samuel tells Crikey he believes the public deserves to know what case the ABC would have put forward.
“The public deserves to know the full story,” he said. “It’s kind of bittersweet because it means that [Porter’s] managed to suppress that information.”
Milligan says Porter was first to propose a settlement. In contrast, Porter called the action a “humiliating backdown” by the ABC.
The ABC will cover the costs of mediation and have added two paragraphs to its story, including: “The ABC did not intend to suggest that Mr Porter had committed the criminal offences alleged.”
Courses of action
Prime Minister Scott Morrison had previously said the defamation heading was the “appropriate inquiry” to assess the allegations and Porter’s suitability to keep his role.
Now the case has been discontinued, Morrison remains silent on whether an independent inquiry into the allegations will be held, for which Kate’s friends have long advocated.
March4Justice ralliers also presented a petition for an independent inquiry, and the Greens have proposed an independent inquiry into Porter’s fitness to be a minister.
The South Australian coroner is investigating Kate’s death and that may lead to a public coronial inquest. Kate took her life in June last year.
Nothing resolved
Kate’s 1988 debate teammate and friend Ian Wilkins tells Crikey the defamation saga had “resolved nothing”.
“For the people who cared about Kate when she was alive, the withdrawal by the accused man of his defamation case against the ABC resolves nothing as to the question of justice for Kate,” he said.
“In this very difficult situation, justice must begin with a full, proper and thorough inquiry into the truth regarding Kate’s allegations.”
Instead the defamation suit shut down dialogue around the allegations, hindered the prospect of an inquiry and cost taxpayers a tidy sum to learn nothing new about our elected official.
If you or someone you know is affected by sexual assault or violence, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit 1800RESPECT.org.au.
OK so the ABC cannot divulge their evidence, but what prevents someone else releasing Kate’s dossier to the public?
Her friends will have kept a copy, and releasing it to the public now would be a fitting response to Porter’s shameless stonewalling.
i hope and pray that the electorate he is in kick him to the curb, will be self rughteous justice to see him get his justuce served to him by his electorate.
Oh, for a Wikileaks to find and reveal the redacted information.
You may not need to wait for Wikileaks….
From today’s Guardian ‘ The judge in Porter’s now defunct defamation act has questioned whether the two parties can agree to destroy documents contained in the broadcaster’s still redacted defence, as a number of news organisations seek access to the confidential file’
This matter will be heard ‘later this month or early in July’, according to Judge Jagot.
One wonders why the ABC would agree to such a deal?
Dont vote LNP.
They are crooks.
if it were the average John Citizen who was involved it would be splashed all over the media and they would not have the same dirty underhanded way to have it suppressed.
This is true to form of the L/NP across the board and is the they hide, deal with anything that is shoddy ( which in most cases they are)
In contrast, waylaider, I think if it was ordinary Joan Citizen, and without a director of Macquarrie Bank, a former Liberal candidate, media acquaintances and private school friends batting for her (posthumously), this whole sordid story, true or not, would have been simply ‘made to disappear’.
Both Porter and the ABC struck an out of court deal to suppress the redacted information. As of today, Judge Jagot has publicly stated that ‘she was not convinced that it was up to a Porter and the ABC to make that decision’.
Judge Jagot has stated that a hearing to decide the matter would take place ‘later this month or early in July’.
Still baffled as to why the ABC would strike this deal with Porter?
‘Still baffled as to why the ABC would strike this deal with Porter?’ Really, look who’s on the board and who’s the MD!
Haven’t heard much on that angle, but yep, possible I guess.. It’s more the legal nuts and bolts of ‘the deal’ that is of interest. Seems to me neither party had a ‘successful’ result. However, the case is still ongoing – we await with much interest.
I’ve been wondering when someone would make that very obvious point.
Not a peep for ”journos.” of course.
Anything’s possible I guess, but any attempt by the ABC Board to run interference in a such an incendiary case as this one, seems unlikely to me.
The politics involved by each party in spinning the result in their favour is fascinating. As it proceeds, new ‘information’ keeps news sites very, very busy.
Dyer is now considering defamation proceedings against Porter. Four Corners EP blurts a tweet with incorrect info and is forced to retract it. Questions remain over what ‘the related costs’ being paid by the ABC amount to. Milligan’s husband is ABC Communications CEO, now that could be handy! Judge Jagot, who is considering overturning the suppression order, was overlooked by Porter for a recent High Court seat.
What’s not to like….
Thanks, I did not know about HH Jagot being overlooked.
However, she seems to be a commercial specialist rather than a suitable appointment to the High Court.
I suspect that it was fear that the continued redaction of the ABC’s case (meaning the documents it had prepared and submitted to the court) would be terminated that forced Porter in to withdrawing. I would not be surprised if the suppressed material is quite horrendous and Porter knew that even if he “won” the case he would lose all support when the information was released.
“Four Corners has spoken to dozens of former and currently serving political staffers, members of Parliament and members of the legal profession.”
… as in I bet they have a long list of quotes they would like to publish. That’s just the bare minimum. Going by what ABC has sought and obtained so far, presumably there is other more sordid stuff they have.
It will inevitably come out direct from the sources, so why not agree to it, especially if helped ABC to stop the litigation.
If the (alleged) perpetrator was Joe Citizen then the whole saga wouldnt have happened in the first place. CP’s fame/clout cuts both ways.