Christian Porter v ABC: can the minister sue for defamation over article that didn't name him?

What will be determined by the case? Will it preclude an independent inquiry?

Christian Porter is suing the ABC and its journalist Louise Milligan for defamation over an online article that alleged a cabinet minister had been accused of rape in January 1988 in a dossier sent to Scott Morrison and three other parliamentarians.

After subsequently identifying himself as the minister, Porter strenuously denied the allegation, and through his lawyers has said the defamation case should end the “trial by media” he says he has faced.

What will be determined by the case? Does it preclude an independent inquiry that Labor and friends of Porter’s accuser have called for? And can Porter sue over an article that didn’t name him?

How does Porter say he has been defamed?

On 26 February, the ABC published a story online headlined “Scott Morrison, senators and AFP told of historical rape allegation against Cabinet Minister”.

According to his statement of claim, lodged with the federal court, Porter argues that the article contained a number of defamatory imputations including that he “brutally” and anally raped a 16-year-old girl in 1988 when he was 17 – and that he is “reasonably suspected” by New South Wales police of having done so – and that the alleged rape “contributed to her taking her own life”.

But the article didn’t name Porter?

Publications can identify a person sufficiently for them to sue for defamation even if they are not directly named.

A University of Sydney law professor and defamation expert, David Rolph, told Guardian Australia that a plaintiff could be “indirectly identified” and “all the person in Porter’s position needs to prove is that at least one person received the publication and reasonably identified him”.

That could be proved with “direct evidence” – a person in the witness box saying they connected the story to Porter, or an inference that a person had made the connection, he said.

Rolph said Porters’ lawyers seem to have taken the latter approach, as the statement of claim contains details of a surge of interest in Porter’s website, with his name trending on Twitter and social media users identifying him in comments on the article.

Of the 16 male cabinet ministers, the claim said, only six were about the same age as the alleged victim, and only three of those were senior ministers.

Why does the claim mention publications after the first story?

The claim contains references to publications after the first story including:

  • An ABC 7.30 story noting that the alleged victim was on her state’s debating team

  • Malcolm Turnbull saying “everybody knows” who the minister accused was

  • The ABC program Media Watch on 8 March, which noted the explosion in mentions of Porter’s name in the wake of the story

The facts set out in the Media Watch episode are described as “admissions” – meaning that Porter will argue that the ABC had conceded Porter could be easily identified by the original story.

Asked about social media mentions and subsequent stories, Rolph said identification was relevant to two issues in the case: liability and the extent of the audience who identified the plaintiff, which was relevant to damages.

How might the ABC and Milligan defend themselves?

Although the case was launched on Monday and no defence has yet been filed, Rolph said he expected the principal defences would be justification and proof of substantial truth.

If they decide to argue this the defendant has to prove any defamatory claims conveyed by the article are true – which is how the proceeding could become a de facto trial of the allegations against Porter.

Unlike the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt, this would be determined on the civil standard of whether the claims are true on the balance of probabilities.

Porter’s lawyer Rebekah Giles has said Porter would have “and will exercise the opportunity to give evidence denying these false allegations on oath”.

Rolph said there was a second set of defences for “qualified privilege” – which turns on the “reasonableness of the publication” in the circumstances.

“The journalistic and editorial decisions – such as decisions about whether to put or not put specific allegations [to the plaintiff] – will be subject to scrutiny in respect of those defences,” he said.

The statement of claim states that the ABC and Milligan had published “serious allegations of criminal conduct about Porter” in the article “without any warning to Porter and without any attempt to give him an opportunity to respond”.

Milligan has said the decision not to approach Porter for comment was done on legal advice that the questions about the allegation should properly go to the prime minister’s office, because it had received the written allegation.

What about malice?

The statement of claim accuses Milligan of “malice” for publishing the story “knowing of the impossibility of any finding of guilt or civil liability in the circumstances and believing that a public campaign to damage his reputation would be a more effective substitute against Porter”.

Rolph said malice – having an “improper motive” – would only be relevant if the ABC and Milligan were able to establish the other elements of the qualified privilege defence.

“If it becomes a live issue it is very difficult to establish,” he said. “It requires the plaintiff to prove on the balance of probabilities that the dominant motive [of the publisher] was an improper one.”

Does this mean there can’t be an independent inquiry?

Giles has said “claims made by the ABC and Ms Milligan [would] be determined in a court in a procedurally fair process” and therefore “trial by media should now end with the commencement of these proceedings”.

Labor has rejected that claim.

The shadow attorney general, Mark Dreyfus, told Guardian Australia while Porter was entitled to bring a defamation case, “it remains the case that Mr Morrison needs to assure himself, and the Australian people, that Mr Porter is a fit and proper person to hold the position of attorney general.

“That is not an issue that can or should be resolved in defamation proceedings and Mr Porter must stand aside pending an inquiry into his fitness to remain in his position.”

Can Porter return to work?

Porter intends to return to work as the attorney general, minister for industrial relations and leader of the house on 31 March.

This may require the delegation of some of Porter’s responsibilities to avoid any potential conflict of interest, such as responsibility for defamation law reform.

On Monday the assistant minister to the attorney general, Amanda Stoker, told Guardian Australia the government was “in the process” of determining how to manage “any potential conflict of interest” arising out of the case.

Contributor

Paul Karp

The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
Christian Porter acting for Mick Gatto in his high court appeal over ABC defamation case
Former attorney general, who discontinued his own defamation action against the ABC last year, among underworld figure’s legal representation

Paul Karp

05, Jul, 2022 @5:30 PM

Article image
Christian Porter reveals part of legal fees paid by blind trust with funds from unknown source
Former attorney general claims he has ‘no access to information about the conduct and funding of the trust’

Paul Karp

14, Sep, 2021 @3:44 AM

Article image
Christian Porter lawyers accuse ABC of dragging its feet over defamation trial date
Tense week of negotiations after bid to stop Sue Chrysanthou from appearing for former attorney general in case against broadcaster

Michael McGowan

17, May, 2021 @5:13 AM

Article image
Christian Porter moves to strike out major sections of ABC’s defamation defence
The former attorney general is suing the public broadcaster and is trying to stop parts of its defence being made public

Paul Karp

06, May, 2021 @9:04 AM

Article image
Christian Porter defamation action: ABC engages former solicitor general to lead defence
Justin Gleeson SC was the solicitor general from 2012 to 2016 and served Labor and Liberal prime ministers

Katharine Murphy and Paul Karp

18, Mar, 2021 @10:00 AM

Article image
Christian Porter loses bid to block affidavit his lawyers said could ‘derail’ ABC defamation case
Judge rules affidavit from Macquarie Bank’s James Hooke is central to the question of whether barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC can act for Porter in defamation case

Michael McGowan

24, May, 2021 @7:26 AM

Article image
Christian Porter and ABC deal to destroy defamation case documents challenged in court
Former attorney general’s decision to drop his court case against public broadcaster sparks a fierce war of words

Michael McGowan and Paul Karp

01, Jun, 2021 @4:34 AM

Article image
Brittany Higgins told senior colleague she remembered Bruce Lehrmann on top of her, defamation trial hears
Linda Reynolds’ then chief of staff Fiona Brown was first to interview pair after alleged rape, which Lehrmann has always denied

Amanda Meade and Elias Visontay

18, Dec, 2023 @9:28 AM

Article image
Lies, whisky and an after-hours visit: Bruce Lehrmann admits he didn’t tell police truth during defamation trial cross examination
Former Liberal staffer also tells defamation trial that he didn’t tell Brittany Higgins he was leaving office because he ‘wasn’t even sure she was still there’

Amanda Meade

23, Nov, 2023 @6:52 AM

Article image
Christian Porter defamation case: judge rules Porter’s barrister Sue Chrysanthou must stand aside
The former attorney general agreed to mediation with ABC ahead of federal court ruling that one of his barristers can no longer represent him in the case

Michael McGowan

27, May, 2021 @9:07 AM