Former federal attorney general seeks a declaration that without permission from the judiciary, media outlets never publish ABC’s unredacted defense.
In walking aloof from his defamation action against the ABC, Christian porter has opened a fresh round within the battle against media outlets.
WHY DID CHRISTIAN PORTER LAUNCH A DEFAMATION CASE AGAINST ABC?
Former Attorney-general Christian Porter launched a defamation case against the ABC following a story about an unknown cabinet minister being accused of a historical alleged rape.
Though the article didn’t name Mr. Porter he publicly identified himself because of the minister in question. He repeatedly denied the allegations.
Porter speaking with the media said that his proceedings forced ABC into “humiliating back down’’ over the “sensationalist” and “one-sided” story.
“They regret the end result of that article,” he said.
“That may be a humiliating backtrack for the ABC, regardless of what way they require to spin it.”
This defamation proceeding was in March and was settled by agreement in May. However, ABC’s defense and Porter’s reply thereto material was redacted after the porter submitted a defense containing “vexatious’” and “scandalous” or matters that were “otherwise an abuse of the process’’.
In July, he was successful in persuading the court to get rid of unredacted material from the court file.
UPDATE ON THE CASE
His latest application targets the unredacted defense and reply provided to the three media outlets before the July ruling.
“Christian Porter is … seeking a safeguard over this defense, not because he owns it but because he doesn’t like what’s in it,” Nine solicitor Larina Alick told the court on Wednesday.
On Wednesday, Porter Barrister said, the documents were only used for the court proceedings. Interveners who obtain documents not otherwise publicly accessible through the court process were subject to an implicit obligation.
That was unless it else becomes published or the commitment not applies, Barry Dean told the court.
He further added, if just in case some unredacted page becomes public shortly, the media outlets would remain obliged to report only on what was within the property right.
“a partial disclosure doesn’t lead to a free-for-all, the duty would still attach to the document”. Dean
Alick said, “Damage to reputation isn’t a reason to suppress,” she said. “Mr. Porter commenced these proceedings within the most open court within the country … this can be a classic example of a celebration who must accept the damage to their reputation inherent in litigation.”
