Well for those taking an interest in this case the Federal Court's publishing of the ABC's defence, which was due on the 4th, was going to be a pretty big milestone. The Court had taken the position "Given the significant public interest in this matter, the Court has adopted a publicly available Online File." and Porter had filed his Further and Better Particulars which can be found here:

http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/porter-v-abc

So where is the ABC's Defence?

Unfortunately we are going to have to wait. Within two hours of submission Porter's defense team had sought to halt that publication. Not for any formative legal reasons it seems. From kangaroocourtofaustralia.com quoting the Federal Court.

“the Court has been informed that there are discussions between the parties concerning the publication of the defence and reply. Justice Jagot proposes to allow the parties a reasonable opportunity to complete these discussions before the uploading of the documents to the online file.”

There is little reason for the ABC to roll over at all, rather there is a fair assumption that Porter's lot may well be scrambling for a settlement to thwart public exposure of their client to revelations contained within the defence.

Interesting.

Wondered about this post, but my Twitter feed this morning was full of speculation that Porter was trying to suppress matters in his case. What actually appears to be happening is that there are allegations made in the documents which are claimed to be "scandalous or vexatious and an abuse of process" and so Porter wants them out of the pleadings. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/christian-porter-bid-to-suppress-parts-of-the-abcs-defence-to-defamation-action/news-story/dbbac3a58140f28cf67a855d78cfa169

There is nothing sinister in this. Indeed, it may be that the ABC is the one with the sinister motive.

Any court documents attract privilege, and while they might be defamatory, as long as they are reported accurately, cannot give rise to a defamation suit.

What Porter is arguing is essentially that the ABC is trying to spread more defamation by putting it into court documents.

Making unsupported and detrimental allegations in pleadings is a not-unusual tactic by litigants, and the judge will make a determination one way or the other. What this post, and related ones on Twitter and elsewhere, indicates, is that the posters have already determined in their own minds the outcome of the litigation.

Can I ask that posters on this thread to be careful? It is very easy to trespass over onto contempt of court.

The courts have to behave according to
the law. And in this case - the courts will have to
decide. We have two opponents - the ABC which says it
"supports having all materials in these proceedings
which are in the public interest open to public
scrutiny."

While Mr Christian Porter's defence team and his
lawyers have applied to have some of the material
omitted.

Mr Porter's legal team is apparently entitled to
have some of the material omitted on the grounds that
1) they contain scandalous, frivolous or vexation material
2) That the material is evasive or ambiguous.
3) Or is likely to cause prejudice or embarrassment.

It will be up to the courts to decide this matter.

We shall have to wait and see.
Predicting anything is a bit risky at this time.
Suffice to say that Mr Porter having been this country's
Chief legal expert knows full well what he can and can't do
according to the law. His team will undoubtedly pursue this
case in a manner that will favour Mr Porter. And the ABC's
legal team will try to do the same for their client.

cont'd ...

Can the minister sue for defamation over an
article that did not name him?

Plus, how is the Minister's case being
funded - his salary won't be enough
as his case will cost millions of
dollars.
The PM has stated it's not taxpayers.
As a Minister - he needs to disclose this
information to ensure there's not a conflict
of interests or are the Minister's lawyers
doing it "pro bono?"

Apparently Christian Porter is financially comfortable
and well connected. His family is from "old money."
A family well set in Perth's upper crust. Porter counts
the state's elite among his friends. Therefore money
and funding should not be a problem for him.

This will prove to be an interesting case.
The ABC may well settle out of court.

Graham, The legal team of each party to the case will be trying a range of legal tactics. That's their job. It would seem a stretch to suggest that any such legal step might be because the ABC has a 'sinister motive'.

According to a Four Corners progream - Christian
Porter has a background of sexual and inappropriate
behaviour that goes back for decades. Women have
come forward testifying to this. This court case
will prove interesting - especially if there are
witnesses within the Liberal Party who are willing
to come forward and testify on how Mr Porter has
behaved in the past regarding women, et al.

I'm happy to let the legal rigmarole play out and let the chips fall as they may. But already there are two points of interest:

* there is a real effort being made to find out who's backing Porter. Why? Well my guess is so that they can be harassed into abandoning him. Isolate and destroy.

* the ABC seems to have all sorts of defence arguments. But not seen among them is any claim or assertion that what they said was provably true. That's the ABC we've come to know.

The ABC's legal counsel says truth will be a substantial defense, and 15 witnesses will be called on this issue.

Porter's legal counsel says the ABC are not pleading truth for most of the case.

Well, they would say that, wouldn't they.

As for the rest of us, we should not prejudge the case, whatever we think of the ABC or Mr Porter.

Its interesting that the ABC never actually named Porter until Porter outed himself, although the Chinese Whispers correctly identified him early on as "the man", other males in Morrison cabinet such as Greg Hunt and Peter Dutton, would also qualify as unnamed suspects.

I agree that we should simply wait and see what
the courts decide and not prejudge anything -
tempting as it may be - "if it walks like a
duck..." One good thing that may come out of all this
is that it just may make people think twice about
the way they behave. We can only hope.

Wow. 26 out of 36 pages of the ABC were redacted. I'm certainly not clear about the full implications of this besides the obvious impact on transparency. However it will foster the notion by some in the public, legitimately or not, that Porter has many things to hide.

http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/porter-v-abc

Could someone please explain -
why is it that Mr Porter's claims are in
the public domain and the ABC's are not?

It appears that Christian Porter has asked the
Federal Court to throw out the bulk of the
ABC's defence to his defamation claim. His lawyers
are relying on a section of the Federal Court rules
dealing with "scandalous"and "vixatious"
or material that is : otherwise an abuse of
the process of the court."

However as articles on the web explain - "the principles of
"open justice"require that the proceedings be reported in a
fair and accurate way, not on a one-sided way, or a way that
only suits one party.

Dear Foxy,

My understanding is that redacted material can still be considered by the Court and form part of the defense but just not presented to the public.

Or the items may have been redacted because their admissibility is still under consideration.

I'm not sure where it stands in this case though.

Dear Steele,

It will be interesting to see how this all unfolds
and what the Federal Court decides.
I have high hopes that it will be fair, just, and
hopefully transparent.

Dear Steele,

The ABC defence has argued that former Attorney General
Christian Porter is trying to control how a defamation
proceeding is reported and what information is made
public.

Renee Enborn QC representing the public broadcaster and
journalist Louise Milligan has stated that it was unfair
to publish all 13 pages of Mr Porter's submission while
significant parts of their defence were being suppressed.

At the same time the presumption of innocence is
fundamental to our society. What we have at present is
an allegation. What makes it more difficult is this lack
of transparency and the legal games that are being played
by Porter and his lawyers.

Not sure what that is all about.

The Sydney Morning Herald has an interesting article:

http://smh.com.au/politics/federal/christian-porter-s-defamation-case-is-no-sure-fine-way-to-find-the-truth-20210315-p57aze.html

Porter wants to stop the ABC from having assertions that are of a "scandalous, frivolous or vexatious nature"...are "evasive or ambiguous, or are otherwise an abuse of the process of the court" put into the court documents.

One reading is that the ABC wants to put other unverified or defamatory claims in the court record so that they can be then reported on with impunity.

The whole aim of this whole process was to destroy an ideological opponent of the ABC and getting as many scurrilous but unprovable tales out is all they care about. Fairness, due process...not so much.

Still haven't seen any indication that the ABC is going to argue truth as a defence. And no indication that the usual ABC apologists see a problem with that.

Is a defamation case a sure fire way to get the truth?

Foxy,

Porter claims that it was obvious to people who the ABC was referring to in its story of a Cabinet minister being an alleged rapist.

I didn't know who it was referring to and I couldn't figure it out and didn't realise who it was until Porter came out and told the media it was him.

I am willing to provide an affidavit to that effect for the ABC to show the Court that Mr Opinion could not work out who the alleged rapist was.

And I think there are a lot of other people who couldn't work it out.

I think they should ask Porter to swear under oath that no one didn't know that he was the alleged rapist.

Hi Mr O,

It does seem a bit odd that Mr Porter should come
forward by himself unless of course his reputation and
his behaviour was already well known in Parliament and
he supposed that people would guess anyway. Perhanps
Porter was the reason that the former PM, Malcolm
Turnbull put the "anti-bonking"rule forward regarding
Ministers and staffers? Who knows? Anyway, I'm not
sure of all the legalities involved - we'll have to wait
and see.

Foxy,

Aren't the cards stacked against the ABC winning the case given that Porter and the Judges/Courts are both members of the State whereas the ABC belongs to Civil Society?

I think it will be a matter of not what one knows but who one knows.

I think the case will be found in favour of Porter by fact that it will turn into a State versus Civil Society conflict and the State has the power and authority to determine an outcome in its own favour even if public opinion is opposed to such an outcome.

Mr 0,
The government is not the state.

Hey everybody, did you see what Aidan just said:

"The government is not the state."

ARE YOU JOKING . . . . . OF COURSE IT IS PART OF THE STATE.

Tells us just how little Aidan knows.

Here is a concise definition of the State (and government) I just found on the web for Aidan and those of his ilk who do not have a knowledge of such things:

"The state is the organization while the government is the particular group of people, the administrative bureaucracy that controls the state apparatus at a given time. That is, governments are the means through which state power is employed."

Time for your afternoon nap Aidan.

Mr O,

Should we be concerned about this Liberal looser? Regardless of the court outcome the cry baby is toast, career wise. Millions dying from Covid-19 with scaremongers peddling false rumours about vaccines, putting lives at risk, and there's no concerns for them and the lies peddled by the ultra right, but lets all be touchy feely about this hack and his civil liberties. I don't care.

Paul1405,

Do you think it might be a case of him winning the battle but losing the war?

I don't think he can lose the defamation case against the ABC given his political relationship to the apparatus of State that will be determining the outcome.

I might write a book: Bob & Carol & Ted & the LNP office desk.

I reckon it will be a best seller. "Is that a desk polisher you've got in your hand or are you just happy to see me?"

SR, et Al

Porter was awarded the injunction against making the part of the ABC's documents available to the media precisely that the documents are defamatory in nature.

I would guess that the ABC's purpose is to make the court case as damaging to Porter as possible. This is a common tactic, Porter's action is a common response that is almost always successful. If Porter loses the case the ABC and others will be free to publish the information.

As pointed out previously, to win the case ABC has two options:
1 - The truth defence, ie the ABC needs to show proof that Porter raped this girl. As there is no admissible evidence this will fail.
2 - To show that the ABC made every effort to keep the accusation anonymous. That many people quickly worked out who was accused this will be extremely difficult.

As far as damages are concerned, the more the damage to Porter the more the ABC will have to cough up. For example, a slight against his reputation would be limited to $400 000 plus costs, whereas if his career is ruined as some dimwits suggest, the damages will likely reach several $m with costs > $10m. The ABC will need to make a grovelling apology and fire another 100 employees to pay for it.

At what point did everyone know the identity of the accused? Not until Porter outed himself. Before all that self flagellation there was only suspicion. Considering the Morrison Cabinet is man heavy, there were many possible suspects. Granted, reading the form of the runners, any bookie worth his salt would have Porter the top weight, an odds-on favourite and the punters number one choice. The Cry Baby's public airing seemed more like a tearful wake, with all that sobbing and gnashing of teeth, pure theatrics on Porters part. I actually expected to see a throng of wailing old women seated to one side. I suppose it was in one way a funeral, the deceased being Porters career, which he threw on the funeral pyre himself.

As for compensation, for now someone should buy the man a root beer. Let the court decide!

shadowminister,

Well no the ABC just has to show what they reported was accurate. They never directly accused Porter of rape. They just said someone had come forward with that assertion against a senior government figure which they demonstrably did.

If I were to guess the outcome will likely be Porter will do a deal which will entice the ABC to consider it cheaper to settle than to bash it out in court, no matter the strength of their case.

The ABC identified the person as the Australian Governor General, and the name of the victim so they have as much identified the person - Christian Porter. Two women are running a campaign to remove Christian Porter from Parliament Dr Kate Ahmad and Dr Anita Hutchison shared an update on An inquiry into the rape allegation against the AG and women’s safety in Parliament House. One a Woman's Advocate Counsellor and the other a Muslim Senator.

Proud Boy Jose'

"The ABC identified the person as the Australian Governor General" Wow is Porter's mob really representing David Hurley in court and Porters just a front. Which one is the Muslim Senator? Maybe its Porter,

Paul1405,

We need to be careful what we say. The walls have ears and I have this vision of a bald headed LPN guy wearing earphones, a scar down the left side of his face, and a black eye patch, listening in on everything I say.

I don't want to be sued for Upsettedness. I think they are trying to bring in capital punishment for anyone found guilty of Upsettedness.

I can just see some LNP guy with a glum look on his face telling a bunch of reporters: "I've been upsetted and I'm going to fix that Mr Opinion guy."

SR,

With all due respect, you are wrong. If you want some perspective here is a clip from the ABC's media watch which explains the legal basis for defamation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Euog4waaHMs&t=515s

The ABC in its program built up the case against the "cabinet minister" and in doing so legal endorsed the accusation of rape.

My mistake. AG means Attorney General not Governor General.

First McLachlan then Porter. Who'll be next ? It'd be a safe bet to say it won't be a labourer !

Cry Baby Porter, has dropped his case against the ABC! What a Wally!

Again the likes of shonkyminister are shown to be the legal dills they are! According to shonky Cry Baby was going to take the ABC for millions, now he should pay the ABC's costs!

Hi Paul1405,

I had said "If I were to guess the outcome will likely be Porter will do a deal which will entice the ABC to consider it cheaper to settle than to bash it out in court, no matter the strength of their case."

I was not quite right but the deciding factor would seem to have been the material that Porter's team sought to have suppressed.

It was this order which sealed it I feel:

"No order of the Court in this proceeding prevents the parties from providing unredacted versions of the Defence and Reply to any mediator appointed by the parties in connection with any mediation in the proceeding."
http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/porter-v-abc/Order-27-May-2021-1200.pdf

The trial was due to start tomorrow but Porter has pulled the pin. What that material contained must have been pretty damning.

A sixteen year old who looses her virginity to a seventeen year old while drunk, can only claim rape on the violent actions on the occasion of the offense at the time. That years of regret and anxiety etc, only happens in the victims mind and should not be considered as part of the rape case, which the ABC wanted to bring up. These events had nothing to do with Christian Porter. I've met several women raped as teenagers who got on with life to become happily married.

The whole public case based reports by the ABC on teen events 33 years ago in itself was defamation of the present character of Christian Porter, and was not a just trial.

Dear Josephus,

What an utterly un-Christian take on this of the type we have come to expect from you.

Diving straight to victim blaming as always.

It wasn't any anything trial as the trial never started.

So how many virgins do you know who were violently anally raped as their first sexual experience?

Implicit in this statement from you "I've met several women raped as teenagers who got on with life to become happily married." is that the perpetrators should be able to get away with it.

What a pathetic and sexist position to take.

You really are a piece of work aren't you.

Louise Milligan is still considering how to get
the 27 redacted pages of the ABC defence made
public.

"I've met several women raped as teenagers who got on with life to become happily married." Oh have you Proud Boy Jose', you are full of it, a backhanded attempt at mitigation of the rape of young girls.

Too right Steele, maybe one day the deeds of Cry Baby Porter may get a public airing. Hold your nose when it does.

Let hope she can Foxy, in the interest of the public good.

Porter laying on the canvas after the count of ten, is claiming a victory!

Having been a telephone counsellor to assist persons in crisis situations, I know people whose lives have not been destroyed by a criminal act.

One young nurse raped by six footballers. who had to flee to America to avoid contact with these thugs. I met her happily married to a professor of engineering with three children. Another woman now in her sixties who shared with me she had been raped by her cousin at fifteen, married with children. Another raped by her father happily married. Another young woman serving in a hospital in Africa raped by Muslim Malisha and fell pregnant had to return to Australia as she chose to have her child and get on with the rest of her life.

That some women become emotionally obsessed with a past event to the point of suicide is not part of the rape. If permanent physical injury is caused or violence can it be considered part of the rape or that the rapist was not known to the victim, that the action has links beyond the act itself

Dear Josephus,

Why do you lot continually do this? Confirming my point through your subsequent post makes this boring.

I put to you that: Implicit in this statement from you "I've met several women raped as teenagers who got on with life to become happily married." is that the perpetrators should be able to get away with it.

You once again delivered a post which did not discuss nor refer to any sanctions whatsoever to be directed at the perpetrators. In your mind it is just about these women getting over it and moving on, even if it entails them having to move overseas.

I have little doubt some women you have talked about will likely have long term trauma from what had happened to them. For you to say "That some women become emotionally obsessed with a past event to the point of suicide is not part of the rape." is just ludicrous.

"The symptoms of RTS and post-traumatic stress syndrome overlap. As might be expected, a person who has been raped will generally experience high levels of distress immediately afterward. These feelings may subside over time for some people; however, individually each syndrome can have long devastating effects on rape victims and some victims will continue to experience some form of psychological distress for months or years. It has also been found that rape survivors are at high risk for developing substance use disorders, major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and eating disorders." Wikipedia

The high suicide rate of those who were raped as youngsters, particularly in religious settings is a proven fact. For you to try and dismiss it is quite frankly evil.

Thanks for that Steele, spot on.

Proud Boy Jose'

Given your bigoted, racists attitudes, one can only imagine what you would tell a rape victim. I wouldn't have you counsel my deaf, dumb and blind hamster! Was your counselling work associated with some loopy, fundo, church mob? You can't see it, but you mitigate the serious action of the perpetrator by deflecting the act to be judged by the condition of the victim. If the victim is "getting on with it" then you mitigate the act of the perpetrator. There is no difference to the seriousness of the rape, whether after the event, the victim appears to be mentally unwell, or as you put it the victim appears normal and "getting on with it". The perpetrator should gain nothing based on the afterwards mental condition of the victim.

Paul if you had been bashed up by a bully as school, that has left you with injuries and fears years later should the bully be held accountable that you might come across him in the future, and he be ever held accountable for those fears and permanent scars. I have! but I have learned to get on with life and not hold grudges forever against the person who assaulted you. I still have the physical scars 70 years later of that event.