Finding the truth vs. "The Rule of Law"

[sptrawler]

That will be interesting. Of course it also enables Porter not to comment on the allegations because they are the subject of court action.

He's taking a risk in my view (not that I'm a lawyer), because if friends of the deceased come forward and say that she told them of the act then it will be a case of who's lying and who is not.

Given Porter's current record of behaviour the jury may well decide not to believe him.

I personally would think it will be held before judges not a jury, also friends coming forward with with "what she said" is hearsay I'm not sure it can be used as evidence, it is up to the ABC and the lady journalist to prove the claim, I would have thought.
Anyway at least it will give 'fact check' something to do.
Now is not the time to be writing anything defamatory on the forum IMO, the lawyers and their paralegals will be trawling for evidence, maybe Bas will let rip. ?

 

[SirRumpole]

I personally would think it will be held before judges not a jury, also friends coming forward with with "what she said" is hearsay I'm not sure it can be used as evidence, it is up to the ABC and the lady journalist to prove the claim, I would have thought.
Anyway at least it will give 'fact check' something to do.
Now is not the time to be writing anything defamatory on the forum IMO, the lawyers and their paralegals will be trawling for evidence, maybe Bas will let rip. ?

One would certainly hope that the ABC's lawyers went through this matter very carefully.

Did the ABC ever name Porter ? He outed himself.

Maybe he should sue himself.

 

[basilio]

"Attack is the best form of defence". Perhaps this is a clever way to stop any other investigation into the alleged events by saying it is now before the courts ?

It would be interesting to see is allowed to be used as evidence in the defamation case and whether this rules out hearsay - what James Hookes has to say about his conversations with the deceased and Christian Porter. This in itself will raise the issue of the Attorney General's flat denial that the allegations were never raised. James Hookes is insistent that there were more than one conversations about the incident around 1992.

I also wonder why there is no slander suit against other internet outlets that have openly accused the AG of rape and identified the deceased ? It's still up on the web.

Porter accuser’s ex reveals new details

A former boyfriend of the Adelaide woman who accused Attorney-General Christian Porter of an alleged rape has revealed for the first time that she had relevant discussions with him in 1989, the year after the alleged incident, and is calling for an independent investigation into the matter.

www.news.com.au

 

[sptrawler]

"Attack is the best form of defence". Perhaps this is a clever way to stop any other investigation into the alleged events by saying it is now before the courts ?

It would be interesting to see is allowed to be used as evidence in the defamation case and whether this rules out hearsay - what James Hookes has to say about his conversations with the deceased and Christian Porter. This in itself will raise the issue of the Attorney General's flat denial that the allegations were never raised. James Hookes is insistent that there were more than one conversations about the incident around 1992.

I also wonder why there is no slander suit against other internet outlets that have openly accused the AG of rape and identified the deceased ? It's still up on the web.

Porter accuser’s ex reveals new details

A former boyfriend of the Adelaide woman who accused Attorney-General Christian Porter of an alleged rape has revealed for the first time that she had relevant discussions with him in 1989, the year after the alleged incident, and is calling for an independent investigation into the matter.

www.news.com.au

You will probably find that other outlets refer to the allegations made by the ABC and the journalist, it is one thing saying something from the first person as opposed to re quoting someone else that can be referenced, as far as I know.

 

[sptrawler]

Well I hope the ABC wins this defamation case against Porter, or IMO there will be a lot of heads to roll, will be very messy and I trust the ABC has done its background work.
They didn't name Porter, but even on here plenty called it as being him, so either those on here have an issue with Porter, or they made it obvious who they were talking about.

The strategy behind Christian Porter’s defamation gamble

The Attorney-General is seeking, very strategically, to back the ABC into a corner by challenging it to prove he is guilty of a crime.

www.smh.com.au

From the article:
Porter’s lawsuit against the ABC and Four Corners reporter Louise Milligan alleges the February 26 online article that revealed a historical rape allegation against a then-unnamed cabinet minister defamed him by portraying him as the perpetrator of a “brutal rape” of a 16-year-old girl in 1988, when he was 17.
A threshold question for the Federal Court, where the lawsuit has been filed, will be whether the article identified him, even though he wasn’t named.

There are a number of bases on which the court might conclude Porter was identified, including that a relatively small class of men, namely senior cabinet ministers, could have been the man at the centre of the allegations.
His name was also trending on Twitter in the days before he outed himself on March 3 as the minister at the heart of the story.
If he is identified by the article, a central issue will be whether the article conveys the very grave meanings that his lawyers claim are contained in the article.

Here, Porter has the upper hand - at least for now. In every defamation case, lawyers for the plaintiff are required to craft the defamatory meanings, known as “imputations”, that are said to arise from a publication. This marks the battleground for the case.
It is in the interest of plaintiffs for these meanings to be pitched at the highest possible level of seriousness, which maximises potential damages and may make it harder for a defendant to mount a successful defence.

The judge presiding over the case will have to decide which meanings were in fact conveyed.

In this case, it is very likely the ABC will argue that these high-level meanings - that Porter is guilty of a “brutal rape”, or there were “reasonable grounds” for suspecting him of the crime - were not conveyed.

It may argue its article suggested only that there were reasonable grounds for an investigation.

The sticking point for the ABC is that it must engage with and defend the meanings pleaded by Porter’s lawyers, not what they believe the article said and intended to say.
For the ABC, that means its defence is likely to be multi-pronged to cover all eventualities. In theory, it could include a truth defence to serious claims it does not believe it conveyed, effectively turning the case into a rape trial inside a defamation case, although this would be extraordinarily risky.

Porter’s lawyers know this, and in a statement his solicitor Rebekah Giles dares them to do it: “If the ABC and Ms Milligan wish to argue the truth of these allegations, they can do so in these proceedings.”

While a lower standard of proof applies in defamation cases, meaning an allegation would only need to be proven on the balance of probabilities rather than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt, this is still a heavy burden.

The ABC likely did not want to say Porter had committed a crime, or was reasonably suspected of one, and ultimately a court may say it didn’t. But Porter has issued a challenge: could it prove that he did? Could anyone?

The truth is no media outlet would want to, and the case is going to be costly and messy for all involved - including him.

 

[orr]

"Attack is the best form of defence".

That was my initial thought... But I see it more now as a broarder tactic toward the next Federal election in the most difficult of all manoeuvers; Retreat.
Is that a wiff of Stalingrad on the wind???

 

[basilio]

Well I hope the ABC wins this defamation case against Porter, or IMO there will be a lot of heads to roll, will be very messy and I trust the ABC has done its background work.
They didn't name Porter, but even on here plenty called it as being him, so either those on here have an issue with Porter, or they made it obvious who they were talking about.

The strategy behind Christian Porter’s defamation gamble

The Attorney-General is seeking, very strategically, to back the ABC into a corner by challenging it to prove he is guilty of a crime.

www.smh.com.au

From the article:
Porter’s lawsuit against the ABC and Four Corners reporter Louise Milligan alleges the February 26 online article that revealed a historical rape allegation against a then-unnamed cabinet minister defamed him by portraying him as the perpetrator of a “brutal rape” of a 16-year-old girl in 1988, when he was 17.
A threshold question for the Federal Court, where the lawsuit has been filed, will be whether the article identified him, even though he wasn’t named.

There are a number of bases on which the court might conclude Porter was identified, including that a relatively small class of men, namely senior cabinet ministers, could have been the man at the centre of the allegations.
His name was also trending on Twitter in the days before he outed himself on March 3 as the minister at the heart of the story.
If he is identified by the article, a central issue will be whether the article conveys the very grave meanings that his lawyers claim are contained in the article.

Here, Porter has the upper hand - at least for now. In every defamation case, lawyers for the plaintiff are required to craft the defamatory meanings, known as “imputations”, that are said to arise from a publication. This marks the battleground for the case.
It is in the interest of plaintiffs for these meanings to be pitched at the highest possible level of seriousness, which maximises potential damages and may make it harder for a defendant to mount a successful defence.

The judge presiding over the case will have to decide which meanings were in fact conveyed.

In this case, it is very likely the ABC will argue that these high-level meanings - that Porter is guilty of a “brutal rape”, or there were “reasonable grounds” for suspecting him of the crime - were not conveyed.

It may argue its article suggested only that there were reasonable grounds for an investigation.

The sticking point for the ABC is that it must engage with and defend the meanings pleaded by Porter’s lawyers, not what they believe the article said and intended to say.
For the ABC, that means its defence is likely to be multi-pronged to cover all eventualities. In theory, it could include a truth defence to serious claims it does not believe it conveyed, effectively turning the case into a rape trial inside a defamation case, although this would be extraordinarily risky.

Porter’s lawyers know this, and in a statement his solicitor Rebekah Giles dares them to do it: “If the ABC and Ms Milligan wish to argue the truth of these allegations, they can do so in these proceedings.”

While a lower standard of proof applies in defamation cases, meaning an allegation would only need to be proven on the balance of probabilities rather than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt, this is still a heavy burden.

The ABC likely did not want to say Porter had committed a crime, or was reasonably suspected of one, and ultimately a court may say it didn’t. But Porter has issued a challenge: could it prove that he did? Could anyone?

The truth is no media outlet would want to, and the case is going to be costly and messy for all involved - including him.

If this is the case then it does seem to be a clever strategy.

I think everyone agrees that providing the overwhelming evidence to get a criminal conviction of rape in a case that
1) is 32 years old,
2) the defendant has died without writing a formal statement,
3) there is no forensic evidence and
4) the alleged perp totally and absolutely denies any such action occurred

is not going to happen. The bar is just too high.
In fact of course most rape cases and almost all similar abuse cases have similar hurdles and for that reason it is almost impossible to get such a criminal conviction.

That doesn't of course necessarily mean the accused is innocent. The case is simply unproven if not unprovable

Overall Christian Porter is attempting to have an investigation on his terms. Rather than examine the entire picture of his fitness to be AG (and this is just one example) he wants to focus on a single long ago incident with no other direct witnesses which can be denied to the very end.

 

[basilio]

You will probably find that other outlets refer to the allegations made by the ABC and the journalist, it is one thing saying something from the first person as opposed to re quoting someone else that can be referenced, as far as I know.

Maybe. However if you check out this website there is much more detail than published in the ABC.

Kangaroo Court of Australia

Why rent a lawyer when you can buy a judge

kangaroocourtofaustralia.com

 

[basilio]

The lived experience of tens of women I know is the reality of sexual abuse and sexual harrassment in their lives or friends or families.

It's the reality that regardless of vehement protestations the events happened but are almost universally ignored, downplayed or gaslighted.

It's the fact that whenever a women does get as far as making a formal complaint or even tries to raise the question the likelihood of justice is minimal.

The hundred thousand plus women who marched around the country are just fed up to the back teeth with this ****.

 

[sptrawler]

Maybe. However if you check out this website there is much more detail than published in the ABC.

Kangaroo Court of Australia

Why rent a lawyer when you can buy a judge

kangaroocourtofaustralia.com

There is a lot of words, but if you read the article he only accuses Porter of lying about receiving forward notice of the juorno's questions, very carefully worded article IMO.
As for his accuracy, I would question his credibility, he obviously doesn't take a great deal of care with his material when he is putting down someone called Peter Van Onselen.
In the last photo it states Porter is on the far left and Onselen is third from the right, when from looking at the picture I would say, Porter is fourth from the right, directly behind the girl in the centre.
If you are going to try and knock other peoples credibility, it is always best to make sure you have your $hit straight, maybe the guy who writes the blog isn't as rigorous with his self checks .
Or maybe the guy on the far left is Porter and I made a mistake.
From your link:

A-G Christian Porter is guilty of raping Katharine Thornton, a powerful prima facie case supports, with the key evidence of lies from Porter’s own mouth

Christian Porter denied raping Katharine Thornton at a press conference on Wednesday (3-3-21) but all he did was lie, lie and tell more lies and the only inference that could be drawn […]

kangaroocourtofaustralia.com

 

[sptrawler]

If this is the case then it does seem to be a clever strategy.

I think everyone agrees that providing the overwhelming evidence to get a criminal conviction of rape in a case that
1) is 32 years old,
2) the defendant has died without writing a formal statement,
3) there is no forensic evidence and
4) the alleged perp totally and absolutely denies any such action occurred

is not going to happen. The bar is just too high.
In fact of course most rape cases and almost all similar abuse cases have similar hurdles and for that reason it is almost impossible to get such a criminal conviction.

That doesn't of course necessarily mean the accused is innocent. The case is simply unproven if not unprovable

Overall Christian Porter is attempting to have an investigation on his terms. Rather than examine the entire picture of his fitness to be AG (and this is just one example) he wants to focus on a single long ago incident with no other direct witnesses which can be denied to the very end.

For him not to take these steps, just encourages the attacks to continue, to say nothing would be looked upon as an admission of guilt.
If the ABC has evidence they haven't got a problem, if it's innuendo and hearsay it will probably cost the ABC a lot of money.
It should be very interesting, I don't think Porter has any other option, he denied it the media continued on with it.
This will bring about an investigation.

 

[sptrawler]

Oh well this Porter saga is starting to unfold similar to the Israel Folau sage, apparently the ABC and the journalist who wrote the articles, have until May 4th to decide if they want to go to court over the claims.

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

 

[SirRumpole]

Oh well this Porter saga is starting to unfold similar to the Israel Folau sage, apparently the ABC and the journalist who wrote the articles, have until May 4th to decide if they want to go to court over the claims.

NoCookies | The Australian

www.theaustralian.com.au

The ABC would be pretty silly to argue truth imo, how could they prove it ? They would be better off just saying that they didn't identify Porter.

 

[sptrawler]

The ABC would be pretty silly to argue truth imo, how could they prove it ? They would be better off just saying that they didn't identify Porter.

If that doesn't work, I think the ABC will be in a world of pain, they really have painted themselves into a corner IMO.

 

[sptrawler]

Now we are starting to see articles about defamation laws are flawed, well I would say defamation is about saying something that defames someone, that can't be proved.
Otherwise we have a situation where if you dislike someone, you just post up they are a pedofile, a murderer, a whatever you want to dream up, magic especially if it is your main competitor for a job. ?

The world is moving into a really fluid space IMO.

 

[IFocus]

Looking more like a train wreck every day

Christian Porter’s lawyer, Rebekah Giles, said to her ex “You and (the woman) will be very happy as long as you keep your Viagra script current, keep flashing your cash and keep the cocaine coming”​

Christian Porter’s lawyer, Rebekah Giles, said to her ex “You and (the woman) will be very happy as long as you keep your Viagra script current, keep flashing your cash and keep the cocaine coming”

Lawyer Rebekah Giles was involved in a dispute with her former partner that was labelled “an ugly revenge pr0n scandal” and she wrote, on social media website Instagram, to her former partner […]

kangaroocourtofaustralia.com

 

[basilio]

Looking more like a train wreck every day

Christian Porter’s lawyer, Rebekah Giles, said to her ex “You and (the woman) will be very happy as long as you keep your Viagra script current, keep flashing your cash and keep the cocaine coming”​

Christian Porter’s lawyer, Rebekah Giles, said to her ex “You and (the woman) will be very happy as long as you keep your Viagra script current, keep flashing your cash and keep the cocaine coming”

Lawyer Rebekah Giles was involved in a dispute with her former partner that was labelled “an ugly revenge pr0n scandal” and she wrote, on social media website Instagram, to her former partner […]

kangaroocourtofaustralia.com

Unbelievable story !!

I have to say I am cautious about Shane Dowling as a reporter . However, there is a history of Rebekah Giles there that makes one think of flying pans and deep fat fryers.

This is how one makes excellent crisps.

 

[sptrawler]

Looking more like a train wreck every day

Christian Porter’s lawyer, Rebekah Giles, said to her ex “You and (the woman) will be very happy as long as you keep your Viagra script current, keep flashing your cash and keep the cocaine coming”​

Christian Porter’s lawyer, Rebekah Giles, said to her ex “You and (the woman) will be very happy as long as you keep your Viagra script current, keep flashing your cash and keep the cocaine coming”

Lawyer Rebekah Giles was involved in a dispute with her former partner that was labelled “an ugly revenge pr0n scandal” and she wrote, on social media website Instagram, to her former partner […]

kangaroocourtofaustralia.com

Yes, no doubt it will be Christian porters Mum and Dad in the firing line next, man your pitchforks.

 

[basilio]

Yes, no doubt it will be Christian porters Mum and Dad in the firing line next, man your pitchforks.

No...

The query is around Christian Porters lawyer who is going to run his case. This will be the Defamation trial of the Century if it goes ahead. From the AG point of view he needs to feel confident his legal advice on the defamation claim and execution doesn't end up totally destroying him.

Meanwhile consider the opticas of this:

“When I talk about rage and anger that the Australian women are feeling, let’s look at the proposition that is being put here,” Keneally said.

“[The proposition is] that Christian Porter can return to his job as attorney general on a full-time salary but doing the part-time work, that parts of his job will be hived off artificially to other people and he will be given the time and space on his full-time salary to fight his defamation case.”

Keneally said it would be “wonderful if women who are victims of domestic violence in this country had access to paid leave when they have to go to court to escape their abusers”, but the government had suggested that “you can dip into your own superannuation and fund your own escape”.

“These are people who barely have any savings. So am I angry about that? Are women across Australia angry about that? Of course we are,” Keneally said.

Proposal that Christian Porter can return to ‘full-time salary doing part-time work’ further fuel for fury, Labor says

Government’s advice that victims of domestic violence should use super to escape abusers a stark contrast, Kristina Keneally says

www.theguardian.com

 

[sptrawler]

No Bas, when people are starting to quote Shane Dowling, it is all becoming very sad.
I had never heard of him before your earlier post, but after reading his posts, IMO it is worse than posting the Bolt report.