Christian Porter

Remove this Banner Ad

Number37 said:
Next AOTY will be some RWFW.
Probably a soldier.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

I mean, look at all the trouble Grace has caused the government.

Fancy motivating someone who alleges they have been raped in Parliament House by a LNP staffer, leading to a spotlight on the treatment of women by that party, to come forward.

The LNP doesn't want another Grace to be appointed AOTY.
 
Last edited:
Aristotle Pickett said:
After months mired in historical rape allegations, Christian Porter is trying to focus on the fight for his political survival. To do so, the senior Coalition minister is spending more money on social media advertising than any other Australian politician.
- Crikey
Where is all this money coming from?
Click to expand...

 

Log in to remove this ad.

Number37 said:
Kwality

Have you read the judgment?

It doesn't paint a very flattering picture of Chrysanthou.
She was advised by everyone (including her own people) to get independent advice, which unanimously said she had a conflict, but she still chose to ignore it.
Click to expand...
If you remember the good lady said it was in the hands of the Court & that is exactly how it played out.
How is Justice Jagot travelling ?
 
Kwality said:
If you remember the good lady said it was in the hands of the Court & that is exactly how it played out.
How is Justice Jagot travelling ?
Click to expand...

That's not what I asked.
Did you read the judgment?

Chrysanthou would have DQ'd Walker (for the Porter case) if she had her way ( she tried to get Walker to sit in on a conference re her conflict, Walker said no)
How could she just ignore very clear advice and just stick with, I'll wait for the ABC defence before deciding if I have a conflict or not?

Was it amateur hour?
 
Number37 said:
That's not what I asked.
Did you read the judgment?

Chrysanthou would have DQ'd Walker (for the Porter case) if she had her way ( she tried to get Walker to sit in on a conference re her conflict, Walker said no)
How could she just ignore very clear advice and just stick with, I'll wait for the ABC defence before deciding if I have a conflict or not?

Was it amateur hour?
Click to expand...

There is no doubt about the judgement, not so sure your interpretation of the law.
 
Kwality said:
There is no doubt about the judgement, not so sure your interpretation of the law.
Click to expand...

What?

You didn't even read the judgment, I was just paraphrasing the judgment.


43 Mr Richardson made a handwritten note of his conversation with Ms Chrysanthou which recorded that he stated it was a “bad idea” to accept the brief from Mr Porter and that there “could be a conflict if they are witnesses” in the defamation proceedings. He suggested Ms Chrysanthou speak to a senior silk. Ms Chrysanthou subsequently spoke to Mr Walker SC and Mr Moses SC.


51 Mr Bradley gave the following account of a conversation with Ms Chrysanthou on 24 March 2021:
On 24 March 2021, I called Ms Chrysanthou and recall a conversation which lasted for approximately five minutes in words to the following effect:

I said: I’ve received written advice from Nic Owens about you acting for Porter. He agrees with our position that you’re conflicted and shouldn’t be acting. Our position remains that you should withdraw from the Porter proceedings and I am formally requesting that you do so. Nic is happy to meet with you directly and talk about it if you like.

She said: I’ve never been in this position before, what happens from here?

I said: Well, if you’re not prepared to withdraw, we’ll have to bring proceedings for an injunction to force you out or complain to the Bar Association, or both. I’d have to get instructions on that.

She said: I’d like to talk to Nic but I want to involve Bret [Walker] in that conversation as well and talk to them both together.

I said: OK that’s fine. I will leave you to organise that and I’ll let Nic know.

She said: That may be difficult this side of Easter, I wasn’t planning to go into chambers again before that.

I said: There is obviously some urgency to getting this resolved.

She said: I’m not actually doing anything on the Porter case at the moment and our side doesn’t have anything to do for a while. The ABC has to file its defence in six weeks’ time, then there’ll be a case management hearing in May and there’s nothing else going on in the meantime.


52 For sensible reasons, Mr Walker declined to become involved: if confidential information of Ms Dyer’s were disclosed to Mr Walker, there would then be an issue about his involvement in the defamation proceedings.


62 At some point which the evidence did not precisely disclose, but which is likely to have been around the middle of April 2021, Mr McHugh SC (acting for Ms Chrysanthou) met with Mr Richardson and went through with him the topics of information which had been identified in correspondence from Mr Bradley as having been discussed at the meeting on 20 November 2020. Mr Richardson reportedly confirmed that nearly all of the topics identified had been discussed. Ms Chrysanthou’s understanding was that Mr Richardson’s memory had been refreshed by reviewing the topics and that Mr Richardson took the view that confidential information had been disclosed during the conference on 20 November 2020.
 
Number37 said:
What?

You didn't even read the judgment, I was just paraphrasing the judgment.


43 Mr Richardson made a handwritten note of his conversation with Ms Chrysanthou which recorded that he stated it was a “bad idea” to accept the brief from Mr Porter and that there “could be a conflict if they are witnesses” in the defamation proceedings. He suggested Ms Chrysanthou speak to a senior silk. Ms Chrysanthou subsequently spoke to Mr Walker SC and Mr Moses SC.


51 Mr Bradley gave the following account of a conversation with Ms Chrysanthou on 24 March 2021:
On 24 March 2021, I called Ms Chrysanthou and recall a conversation which lasted for approximately five minutes in words to the following effect:

I said: I’ve received written advice from Nic Owens about you acting for Porter. He agrees with our position that you’re conflicted and shouldn’t be acting. Our position remains that you should withdraw from the Porter proceedings and I am formally requesting that you do so. Nic is happy to meet with you directly and talk about it if you like.

She said: I’ve never been in this position before, what happens from here?

I said: Well, if you’re not prepared to withdraw, we’ll have to bring proceedings for an injunction to force you out or complain to the Bar Association, or both. I’d have to get instructions on that.

She said: I’d like to talk to Nic but I want to involve Bret [Walker] in that conversation as well and talk to them both together.

I said: OK that’s fine. I will leave you to organise that and I’ll let Nic know.

She said: That may be difficult this side of Easter, I wasn’t planning to go into chambers again before that.

I said: There is obviously some urgency to getting this resolved.

She said: I’m not actually doing anything on the Porter case at the moment and our side doesn’t have anything to do for a while. The ABC has to file its defence in six weeks’ time, then there’ll be a case management hearing in May and there’s nothing else going on in the meantime.


52 For sensible reasons, Mr Walker declined to become involved: if confidential information of Ms Dyer’s were disclosed to Mr Walker, there would then be an issue about his involvement in the defamation proceedings.


62 At some point which the evidence did not precisely disclose, but which is likely to have been around the middle of April 2021, Mr McHugh SC (acting for Ms Chrysanthou) met with Mr Richardson and went through with him the topics of information which had been identified in correspondence from Mr Bradley as having been discussed at the meeting on 20 November 2020. Mr Richardson reportedly confirmed that nearly all of the topics identified had been discussed. Ms Chrysanthou’s understanding was that Mr Richardson’s memory had been refreshed by reviewing the topics and that Mr Richardson took the view that confidential information had been disclosed during the conference on 20 November 2020.
Click to expand...

I have no idea how these things work, but is the an instance where Porter might wriggle out of paying some invoices?

He might finally get a win after all
 
Kwality said:
There is no doubt about the judgement, not so sure your interpretation of the law.
Click to expand...

FYI...there was a retainer.

56 On 31 March 2021, Mr Bradley responded to Mr George, indicating that the retainer had not been terminated:
…we also do not accept, to the extent that your letter suggests otherwise, that Ms Chrysanthou’s brief for Ms Dyer has terminated. It is correct that she is not presently instructed to perform any work in relation to the brief, but her retainer is ongoing.


Which makes this thing even more bizarre. Why would Chrysanthou think she could represent both Porter and Dyer?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Number37 said:
FYI...there was a retainer.

56 On 31 March 2021, Mr Bradley responded to Mr George, indicating that the retainer had not been terminated:
…we also do not accept, to the extent that your letter suggests otherwise, that Ms Chrysanthou’s brief for Ms Dyer has terminated. It is correct that she is not presently instructed to perform any work in relation to the brief, but her retainer is ongoing.


Which makes this thing even more bizarre. Why would Chrysanthou think she could represent both Porter and Dyer?
Click to expand...
I understand it is because Dyer is not named in the Porter v ABC case, but I'm not a lawyer.
 
Kwality said:
I understand it is because Dyer is not named in the Porter v ABC case, but I'm not a lawyer.
Click to expand...


The Australian was publishing stories with the inference that Dyer was making sh*t up re her friend getting raped.
Dyer spoke to, and had meetings with, and retained Chrysanthou for the purpose of suing the The Australian for defamation.
In their correspondence she revealed details, confidential information, that would support her case against The Australian.

You can't seriously be arguing that Chrysanthou knows nothing, or should be allowed to use that confidential information, to defend in court the person accused of raping her friend?
 
Number37 said:
The Australian was publishing stories with the inference that Dyer was making sh*t up re her friend getting raped.
Dyer spoke to, and had meetings with, and retained Chrysanthou for the purpose of suing the The Australian for defamation.
In their correspondence she revealed details, confidential information, that would support her case against The Australian.

You can't seriously be arguing that Chrysanthou knows nothing, or should be allowed to use that confidential information, to defend in court the person accused of raping her friend?
Click to expand...
What did Ms Dyer say in that conversation that would so embarass/compromise her or is truth an inconvenience.
 
Kwality said:
What did Ms Dyer say in that conversation that would so embarass/compromise her or is truth an inconvenience.
Click to expand...

WTF are you on about?
It's got nothing to do with embarrassing her.
It's got to do with what she knows about what happened to Kate.
The Australian were making her out to be a liar.
She, along with some others, were provided with details about the rape, directly from Kate.
She provided some of those details to Ms Chrysanthou.
The information she disclosed in those meetings showed that she wasn't lying.
If you read the judgment, The Australian accepted that she wasn't lying.

Hooke was also involved in those discussions, both in person and in an email chain.
Dyer only found out more recently. Hooke has known since 1992.
 
Kwality said:
What did Ms Dyer say in that conversation that would so embarass/compromise her or is truth an inconvenience.
Click to expand...

Another FYI,

KangarooCourtOfAustralia called it from the get-go.
When the truth came out, Porter would drop his suit faster than you say 'alleged rapist Christian Porter', just like Alan Jones dropped his defamation suit against SBS.
 
Kwality said:
What did Ms Dyer say in that conversation that would so embarass/compromise her or is truth an inconvenience.
Click to expand...
Number37 said:
WTF are you on about?
It's got nothing to do with embarrassing her.
It's got to do with what she knows about what happened to Kate.
The Australian were making her out to be a liar.
She, along with some others, were provided with details about the rape, directly from Kate.
She provided some of those details to Ms Chrysanthou.
The information she disclosed in those meetings showed that she wasn't lying.
If you read the judgment, The Australian accepted that she wasn't lying.

Hooke was also involved in those discussions, both in person and in an email chain.
Dyer only found out more recently. Hooke has known since 1992.
Click to expand...
Are you sure?
Whatever Dyer said is not the reason she did not want it heard in open court, her motive cross examined.
Hooke was fair game if the case went ahead.
Either way the decision of Justice Jagot on what is sealed will draw a line between fact & speculation.

Somehow I dont think that decision will be the end of the speculation.
Loose lips sink ships.
 
Kwality said:
Are you sure?
Whatever Dyer said is not the reason she did not want it heard in open court, her motive cross examined.
Hooke was fair game if the case went ahead.
Either way the decision of Justice Jagot on what is sealed will draw a line between fact & speculation.

Somehow I dont think that decision will be the end of the speculation.
Loose lips sink ships.
Click to expand...

Do you wear an onion on your belt?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top