Attorney-General Christian Porter

Time bomb ticking for Christian Porter goes off on Wednesday as suppression orders are due to be lifted if the law is enforced

Christian Porter is in deep trouble with his defamation case against the ABC and journalist Louise Milligan with suppression orders due to be lifted on Wednesday (2/6/21), exposing evidence he has been trying to hide from the public. This is on top of his dodgy barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC on Thursday (27/5/21) being restrained by Justice Thawley from representing Porter even after she gave a masterclass in perjury.

Porter and the ABC were reportedly in a mediation meeting on Friday trying to resolve the matter and with the ABC failing to file their written submissions again on Friday, as ordered by the court, it suggests the mediation might have worked and the matter is settled. But if it hasn’t settled they will be in court on Tuesday the 1st of June and Wednesday the 2nd of June for the hearing to dismiss and suppress some of the ABC defence.

The Rush precedent

When actor Geoffrey Rush sued The Sydney Telegraph Justice Wigney dismissed some of The Sydney Telegraph’s defence but he refused Rush’s application to put a suppression order or non-publication orders on the parts of the defence he dismissed because there needs to be an “exceptional circumstance” to justify the suppression orders or non-publication orders. One of the barristers representing Rush was Sue Chrysanthou and she has tried the same failed application for suppression orders in this matter as she tried in the Rush matter. Although, as with the Rush matter, she did manage to get interim suppression orders in this matter until the hearing which is scheduled for next Tuesday (1/6/21) and Wednesday (2/6/21).

If Justice Jayne Jagot, who is hearing the Porter v ABC matter, follows the Geoffrey Rush v The Sydney Telegraph precedent she will not extend the suppression orders beyond Wednesday which in effect means the suppression orders will be lifted that day when the hearing is finished. No more suppression orders spells trouble for Porter, his legal strategy and his reputation as the public get to hear what is in the ABC’s defence that he doesn’t want the public to know.      

My application

My Notice of Motion to intervene in the Christian Porter v ABC matter to argue against the suppression orders was listed for directions on Thursday the 27th of May at 9.30am. I connected to the video link and I could see Justice Jagot, who is in the Federal Court in Sydney, but they could not hear me, so they adjourned the matter until 9.30am on Tuesday the 1st of June which is the same day as the main hearing for suppression orders which is listed at 10.15am.

I found it very suspicious as I have connected to video links in the NSW Supreme Court, which is the same building as the Federal Court in Sydney, about 30 times over the last 18 months and whenever there is a problem with the video link, they will phone you or email you to fix the problem. If they had done that on Thursday the problem would have been solved in minutes and many hearings go ahead with someone just on the phone which so why not my matter? Very strange indeed.

One issue might be that the barrister who has already intervened on behalf of News Corp and Nine Entertainment was given copies of the suppressed material and if they allow me to intervene then they should also give me a copy of the suppressed material which I am sure they would not be overly happy about doing. I have been emailed by the court another link for my hearing next Tuesday for the public to watch on the internet which is here: https://secure.quickchannel.com/qc/create/staticlive.aspPRODUCER_ID=ability1421& SESSIONID=34AB945B00000000306141321 DCEAE14&VMR=room17@fedcourt.gov.au

Sue Chrysanthou SC – (Click here to read the last article with background information)

Some media are saying that Barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC “stepped aside” from representing Christian Porter but that is false. Chrysanthou refused to step aside from representing Porter and after Jo Dyer took legal action Sue Chrysanthou was restrained by Justice Thawley on Thursday (27/5/21) from representing Porter in this matter any further. Some journalists are still talking up Sue Chrysanthou as a star barrister when the reality is her reputation is now trashed.

Sue Chrysanthou “cited opinions by Bret Walker, SC, and Arthur Moses, SC, that she was actually obliged to act for Mr Porter.” (Click here to read more) Many other journalists also reported that but none of them analysed it at all. 

Christian Porter had 2 barristers representing him before Sue Chrysanthou was removed and the second one is Bret Walker, SC so his opinion that Sue Chrysanthou was “obliged to act for Mr Porter” was hardly impartial and only makes a scandalous situation even more scandalous.

And now for good mate Arthur Moses, SC. He is a former Liberal Party candidate who ran for pre-selection in the Sydney seat of Epping in 2006 but pulled out of the race. (Click here to read more)

And in March 2021 Arthur was doing the media rounds defending Porter:

“Last night on ABC’s Four Corners, eminent Sydney silk, Arthur Moses QC, sounded a warning that “the floodgates” would open if an inquiry into rape allegations against Christian Porter were to be held after the NSW police had declared that it would not proceed with a criminal investigation. Moses argued that such an approach would be “unprecedented”.” (Click here to read more)

So to sum up, Sue Chrysanthou told the court she had opinions “by Bret Walker, SC, and Arthur Moses, SC, that she was actually obliged to act for Mr Porter” when she knew that both of them were badly compromised from giving that sort of advice. Not only did she try and deceive the court she also dragged her mates Bret Walker, SC, and Arthur Moses, SC into it. All of them, including Christian Porter, should be charged with conspiring to pervert the course of justice.

Christian Porter has a few days to settle the matter otherwise more details of his alleged crimes will become public. 

Please use Twitter, Facebook, email and the other buttons below and help promote this article.  

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 website, 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)

Thank you for your support.

Follow Kangaroo Court of Australia for free and be notified via email immediately there is a new article posted

Enter your email address below and click on the follow button. You can unfollow at any time. 

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

25 replies »

  1. There are many waiting in general population for Christian to come a visit for a while. Let’s hope he gets a little holiday at Her Majesty’s Flats in Silverwater …..

  2. I am not at all surprised that there was ”a technical difficulty” preventing the timely progress of this political matter.

    In a civil motor vehicle matter in the Local Court where I represented myself the recorded proceedings of the hearing were changed not once but on two occasions, deleting critical evidence of maladministration of justice by at least two Magistrates.

    The NSW Court system has become a retirement centre for too many political gifts of well paid careers for tame political favourites.

  3. If the ABC not submitting papers on Friday is an indication that mediation may have been successful, would the suppression orders case still go ahead this week? I would have guessed that if mediation was successful all related documents would remain hidden… perhaps unless a later government ordered an inquiry.

    • Right on …. his whinny little voice today groveling and trying to make out he’s been hard done by ….

  4. The taxpayers of Australia really enjoy forking out the mega-dollars anually to pay the salaries of law-abusing buffoons.

  5. It’s not just Christian Porter who seems to think he is above the law … it’s all these silks and many of the judges. Politicians investigating their own, the Bar investigating their own, and even more incredulous is that the judges have no practical mechanism of scrutiny of one-another – so all of these people are in affect uncountable. Only a free press can maintain some semblance of public scrutiny for us, we ordinary citizen surfs.

  6. Sue has not finished grifting as she has taken on Barilaro ‘s defamation case against a you tube site. Barilaro is number 2 in the NSW government. I would think he is having second thoughts now or is he rich enough to waste his finances on a useless venture. Maybe Walker and or Moses gave him some advice also.

    Shane:
    Porter mentioned he was going to force Jo Dyer to pay for the action is that possible or just b/s?

  7. I sure hope the ABC have not caved in. This story has huge public interest and for justice to prevail for both the late Ms Thornton and the integrity of the entire system, the whole thing should be aired.

  8. Australia desperately needs an independent ICAC and one that covers not just Federal and State Politics, but the Justice system too. It is of great concern that unaccountability from unethical behaviour is greatly failing tax payers both from our Justice System and our broken political system. The huge amounts of money that service the Justice System at tax payer’s expense should be up for INDEPENDANT investigation as well.

  9. Oh what an interesting time we live in!
    So where does Porter go now – certainly not back to being the Attorney General!
    He has basically admitted that he did what was described in the report.
    The big questions have to be why, when and who in regards to the NSW Police, the Government and anybody else who might have information in regards to this problem.
    Keep up the good work!

  10. Mr Porter’s solicitor, Rebekah Giles, said in a statement that the ABC and Milligan had “expressly agreed to … the permanent removal of the defence from the Court file”.

    • must of been a lot more factual dirt on Porter for him to quit,,, as they say when you are in a hole stop digging,,, as all you do is dig up more dirt and would bet Porter is really filthy and needs to hide more activities,,,before they are fully exposed

  11. The Guardian — “The judge in Christian Porter’s now-defunct defamation action against the ABC has questioned whether the two parties can agree to destroy documents contained in the broadcaster’s still-redacted defence, as a number of news organisations seek access to the confidential file.”

    https://tinyurl.com/PorterDocs

  12. Maybe the Christian ran out of money to run the case? Realised what a shitload it was going to cost him, especially with his top barrister charging tens of thousands a day. Or maybe he was being funded by someone rich and didn’t want to declare who it was? Maybe his wife wouldn’t release the funds? I go for “follow the money trail” to get to the bottom of this saga. He started with such a bang that ended in a whimper.

  13. Could Jo Dyer’s response to Porter’s garbage lead to defamation action that will allow us to see the 27-page Porter file? How inglorious for Porter’s legal team if this happened.

  14. Unaccountable, unrepresentative swill – Porter for all his faults has continually sold out Western Australia. Just a complete tosser who thinks he is above the law – the reason, he actually is above the law because the criminals protect their own.
    Just a dog who deserves everything coming to him. Typical coward politician – try to use defamation laws to get rid of the truth – pack of morally corrupt swill.
    Spoiled little rich boy – needs a good holiday in one of our prisons.

Leave a Reply