Justice Michael Wigney

Alleged sexual predator Geoffrey Rush’s defamation win was a claytons win

Australian actor Geoffrey Rush won his defamation case against the News Corp owned Sydney paper The Daily Telegraph on Thursday (11-4-19) but the win was a claytons win given Geoffrey Rush has failed to take legal action against actress Yael Stone who has made more serious allegations against Rush.

Unless Rush follows up and also sues Yael Stone, and/or the ABC’s 7.30 Report which broadcast Ms Stone’s allegations, then Geoffrey Rush will forever be looked upon by many as a sexual predator who only won a defamation case because a single judge believed him over his accuser.

If the Yael Stone allegations are left unchallenged in court then that is likely to do substantially more damage to Geoffrey Rush’s future career opportunities than anything The Daily Telegraph has published.

The Daily Telegraph allegations

The Daily Telegraph ran stories portraying Geoffrey Rush was a sexual predator because someone leaked to The Daily Telegraph a personal complaint that actress Eryn Jean Norvill had made against Rush during a theatre production of King Lear in 2015/2016. Eryn Jean Norvill has stated that she never wanted her complaint made public, she never gave an interview to The Daily Telegraph and initially refused to give evidence at the Rush defamation trial.

The reporting of The Daily Telegraph is extremely questionable especially given Eryn Jean Norvill never wanted her complaint to be made public. Be that as it may, the defamation case seems to have encouraged another actress, Yael Stone, to come forward with her own complaint against Geoffrey Rush.

Eryn Jean Norvill’s allegations against Rush were that he rubbed Norvill’s breast, rubbed her back and sent some inappropriate text messages. Only minor allegations in comparison to the multiple rape allegations Harvey Weinstein and others are facing in the US that have been exposed during the #MeToo movement. But when Eryn Jean Norvill’s allegations are put together with Yael Stone’s allegations it paints a picture of a serial pest whose actions are bordering on criminal.

Yael Stone allegations

The allegations Yael Stone made against Geoffrey Rush in a 7.30 Report interview in December 2018 are almost identical to the allegations Eryn Jean Norvill made but more extreme.

Yael Stone, the Australian star of Netflix series Orange is the New Black, has made explosive claims about veteran actor Geoffrey Rush, alleging he exposed himself to her backstage, sent her sexually suggestive text messages, and attempted to spy on her while she was showering. In a statement issued on Monday afternoon, Mr Rush has denied any inappropriate behaviour.

The 7.30 Report says they have seen the sexual text messages and have spoken to witnesses for both the dancing naked allegation and spying allegation which would explain why the Geoffrey Rush has not sued for defamation.

Since 1988, Geoffrey Rush has been married to actress Jane Menelaus and I don’t think she would be too happy with him.

The 7.30 Reports says:

In an extensive, 40-minute on-camera interview with 7.30 in a New York hotel room, the actor detailed her experience working with Mr Rush in 2010 and 2011.

She says she is speaking publicly to help compel change in the entertainment industry.

The allegations centre on the stage play Diary of a Madman, in which the two co-starred at Sydney’s Belvoir Street Theatre.

Mr Rush, aged 59 at the time, was a long-established superstar of stage and screen but Stone, then 25, was a minor player in comparison. (Click here to read more or watch the interview below)

Yael Stone’s allegations aren’t going away and if he doesn’t sue, and it looks likely he isn’t going to, then the inference that many will draw is that the allegations must be true.

The judgment last Thursday by federal court judge Michael Wigney was fairly damming of actress Eryn Jean Norvill which is poor form by the judge especially given she never wanted her complaint made public. I think it would have been a whole new ball game if it had of gone before a jury and if Yael Stone and her witnesses had also given evidence.

Geoffrey Rush should never have gone to court

There is a long way to go in this story as Geoffrey Rush has been awarded $850,000 but the matter has been set down for further argument for Rush to claim lost earnings and costs which may go into the $millions.

If I was News Corp’s lawyers I would be arguing there should a very limited amount if anything awarded for lost earnings as the interview that Yael Stone gave is a lot more damaging as she is a well-known actress in the US and her allegations have gone unchallenged in court by Mr Rush. Given Justice Michael Wigney’s star-struck judgment in favour of Geoffrey Rush News Corp’s lawyers probably won’t have much luck but it’s worth a shot.

One of the only positives about Justice Wigney’s judgment is that it might force the closure of The Daily Telegraph sooner rather than later as it would be struggling to make a profit now let alone with a multi-million payment to Geoffrey Rush.

I doubt very much Geoffrey Rush will ever get his reputation back and he’ll always look back and question if it was worth suing. It’s only Geoffrey Rush, Eryn Jean Norvill and Yael Stone who know the full details. This is a complex matter for all involved.

Please use the Twitter, Facebook and email etc. buttons below and help promote this post.

Kangaroo Court of Australia is an independent website and is reliant on donations to keep publishing. If you would like to support the continuance of this site, please click on the button below to donate via PayPal or go to the donations page for other donation options. (Click here to go to the Donations page)

If you would like to follow this website, you can by email notification at the top right of this page and about twice a week you will be notified when there is a new article.

Thank you for your support.

20 replies »

  1. How much is enough if you don’t need more? Or must you have more? And what if you can’t take any more? So many questions and so few answers!

  2. A court with a single judge is an unlawful Star Chamber.These-as you should know – Star Chambers were outlawed by the King of England centuries ago, as they are courts of summary judgement, and as you correctly pointed out, it was a personal preference/attitude/notion thatgot Rush the decision.More to the point is that we are all to be judged by a jury of our peers, whichis the lawful way. And you know that the Rothschilds own the BAR Association, and that you can demand that the judge renounce his Oath to Freemasonry and Kol Nidre, etc.If you actually seriously want “justice” you need to demand the above prior to going into a court hearing.If not, you are actively allowing injustice to prevail. Gaz

  3. Contrary to your opening sentence. I believe all this will be forgotten inside a month. Our Federal Election will take care of that! #Me2 are unlikely to highlight Rush’s win as it would draw attention to the frailty of most of their members complaints. William Shakespeare sums it up perfectly. All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages.

  4. This event only highlights the depths of stupid the ABC has plumbed, by “dredging” evidence of smut between fellow actors in a play.

    Morality and the arts is an oxymoron. Who wouldn’t know that?
    Best advise to prissy female upstart actors, would be; if you value the privacy of your breasts, don’t go there!

    Really; there are more serious concerns in life, and most people in real life, wouldn’t give a tinkers damn regarding this immoral witch-hunt against an old man: They see it for what it is…

      • Typical response from one who doesn`t accept a trial outcome, didn`t you read the summary by Justice Wignell regarding the unreliability of witness Norvill?

  5. Another good thing to come out of this is the financial windfall for the lawyers. How in the name of Jesus are they to finance their uppity lifestyles if kind and considerate people like Geoffrey Rush don’t do their bit by getting them all in on the act at six thousand a day? … whatever that act might have been. One extremely bad thing to come out of it is your claim that it was a Claytons win and unless Mr Rush throws a lot more money at these turkeys he’ll be deemed to be guilty.

  6. It’s far beyond time for men in general, Mr. Rush and his ilk in particular, to realise how their behaviour, comments and attitudes effect women, young and more mature. Even when their behaviour is done in what they consider, jest. When women draw a line against such behaviour, comments and attitudes it is often with restrained vehemence and then the battle begins. Having been in similar circumstances, I understand the stance each of these women has taken and sympathise. It would seem that Justice Wigney has considered Eryn Jean Norvill’s allegations as trivial. This seems to be the general practice of men of more mature age and of high position. Ugly. Soul destroying.

  7. Why would he want to pursue it further, he is not guilty, he is not going to prison suffering any punishment, quite the opposite.
    .
    Everyone in the world who supports Geoffrey Rush will be clapping their hands and look upon the name Yael Stone and laugh about the stupid cow with ‘egg-on-her-face’.

    Has it ever occurred that Mr Rush does not want to join the mad masses of modern-day warriors of the sue, sue, sue, sue brigade which is likened to a cow, one side tugging the horns, the other side tugging the tail while the lawyers sit under the udder collecting the milk.

  8. I agree with BIBIFROMOZ, just to look at him, without being an actress, gives me the creeps, can you imagine, being in front of him looking at his ugly nose, and seeing him naked, It would be a nightmare for the rest of my life. Another Emperor falls from its Throne.

  9. Thanks for your website. As someone with a legal background, you seem to be one of the few people willing to hold the powerful in society to account, including the legal profession.

    I do think it’s unfortunate though when people say “We can never really know what happened, we weren’t there” or “Only the people there really know what happened.” Often throughout our lives and even multiple times a day we have to decide whether something is a fact sometimes based just our “common sense”. It’s a bit like creationists saying, “No one was at the start of universe so we can’t know that evolution is true.” Granted, there is a lot of physical evidence for evolution. The analogy isn’t perfect. The point is the legal standard of “on the balance of probabilities” is common sense and common sense tells you whether someone’s word is probably more truthful than not. It takes a twist of logic to go through your day and say about everything, “Well I don’t know because I wasn’t present.”

    I know the terrible cost to women (and men) of speaking up about sexual assault and harassment. It snaps the mind to wonder what possible benefit Ms. Stone or EJ Norvill would gain from lying about Rush and making it public? Due to his age Rush’s career is pretty much over, but one wonders what will be the on-going cost to Ms. Norvill. No one should someone turn up for work and have to deal with a powerful creep in the workplace.

    It was unfortunate that Justice Wigney said Rush wouldn’t have assaulted EJ in public. Rolf Harris, Jimmy Savile and Catholic Priests often did assault in public for the thrill of it and also because it makes the victim’s story seem less credible.

    As we’ve seen from the George Pell trial, the powerful line up to protect each other. Thank you for shining a light on these creepy people and let’s hope any money Rush makes out of this is eaten up in legal fees.

    The effect of our legal system is that he assaulted people and is now being paid for it.

  10. Thankfully it is getting easier for victims of sexual assault to speak up, but still a long way to go. Even the legal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” doesn’t mean “beyond ANY doubt.” Most of the public know this, what their ‘reasonable’ common sense view of the matter is, but lawyers don’t care about what’s true, only about winning. That’s why among other reasons rates of depression in the legal system are so high. Lawyers get addicted to winning and money no matter the cost to others and judges often live in a bubble or are morally corrupt themselves.

  11. You’ve got it spot on. Why not sue the ABC if he’s so innocent as he claims. He’s got enough money to. Gives me the creeps Rush supposed to be playing the role of a father with that young woman. Not really getting into the character. Shame on his co-stars and director. Certainly won’t be going out of my way to support anything they are involved with.

  12. I feel sorry for Ms. Novill and I’m no fan of the Daily Tele, but glad that another powerful grub has been outed. Put him in the compost with Don Burke and they can get hot and steamy together.

  13. As you wrote above:’ It’s only Geoffrey Rush, Eryn Jean Norvill and Yael Stone who know the full details. This is a complex matter for all involved.’

    We are all in the same boat, but your thread and some of the comments it has attracted amply demonstrate the truth of what Rush and Justice Wigney said after the trial.

    “Leaving court, the actor said he was satisfied with the result but added: “There are no winners in this case. It has been extremely distressing for everyone involved.”

    Justice Wigney agreed with Rush, who argued that the published stories had led to “hatred, ridicule and contempt”, causing damage to his reputation and financial loss running into millions of dollars.

    “This was a recklessly irresponsible piece of sensationalist journalism of the very worst kind,” he added.”

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newslondon/geoffrey-rush-wins-£464000-in-defamation-case-as-judge-calls-‘grope’-accuser-unreliable/ar-BBVQpIX

    • Interesting that the judge has left a gap between judgement and damages. Righto, fair enough, but it wouldn’t be beyond the imagination to think that a judge, handing down a wingnut decision, then waits for the public uproar and then bob’s your uncle, there’s your evidence to say that poor old Geoff won’t get work again so lets give him 25 mil to add to the 40 odd millions that he’s already worth. My heart’s bleeding for him.

    • So everyone is equally a victim here? The perv is as much a victim as the person he pervs on? I’m just waiting for someone to say it was all just one big misunderstanding. Men mean everything they say and do until someone takes it the wrong way and then they didn’t mean it. Sounds like postmodernism.

Leave a Reply to Penguinite Cancel reply