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

Shane Dowling

3 years ago

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 so please click on the Patreon button below and support independent journalism.