Federal Court refuses David Leyonhjelm’s bid to quiz Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young about her sexual history, political views, ahead of defamation trial

Senator Sarah Hanson-Young will not have to answer former senator David Leyonhjelm’s questions about her sexual history before she sues him for defamation.

• ‘Tepid whinge’: Leyonhjelm fires back at Hanson-Young lawsuit
• Hanson-Young’s daughter says Leyonhjelm ‘deserves to apologise’
• Liberal Democrat senator to quit federal Parliament
• Senator’s defamation lawsuit will go ahead, court rules

Senator Sarah Hanson-Young will not have to answer former senator David Leyonhjelm’s questions about her sexual history before she sues him for defamation.

However, two of the duo’s fellow politicians — Senators Derryn Hinch and Stirling Griff — will receive subpoenas to appear before the Federal Court and give evidence.

In a judgment on Thursday, Justice Richard White refused Mr Leyonhjelm’s application to ask 72 “interrogatories” of Ms Hanson-Young ahead of the trial, starting on April 29.

He said asking questions such as “has Ms Hanson-Young voluntarily had sexual intercourse with more than one male person” were neither necessary nor reasonable.

Former Liberal Democratic senator David Leyonhjelm speaks to media with Anthony Morris QC outside the Commonwealth Law Courts in Adelaide last year. Picture: AAP / Mark Brake

Justice White said the same applied to the other 71 questions, some of which dealt with her political beliefs and whether she was “more left wing, radical or reforming”.

Others queried her stance on taxes, the rights of women, and whether freedom of speech “should be curtailed (if) it harms the interests of” Aboriginal people.

Ms Hanson-Young, the SA Greens senator, is suing the Liberal Democrats’ former senator over media interviews he gave last year.

They followed comments made during a Parliamentary debate about preventing violence against women, when he told her to “stop shagging men”.

Ms Hanson-Young asserts Mr Leyonhjelm’s public comments went further, painting her as a misandrist and hypocrite who made “absurd” comments about men and rape.

Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young arrives at the Federal Court in Sydney last month. Picture: AAP / Dan Himbrechts

In his judgment, Justice White said Mr Leyonhjelm claimed to need answers to the 72 questions in order to prepare his defence case.

He said the former senator argued his comments were his honest opinion, justified, fair comment, matters of public interest and “constitutionally-protected free speech”.

Mr Leyonhjelm further claimed Ms Hanson-Young would have suffered no damage, as the public “widely understood” he was “at polar extremes of the political spectrum” from her.

He asserted she was “among the most radical, reforming or socialist” members of Parliament, while he was “among the most libertarian, conservative and anti-socialistic”.

His words, he asserted, would therefore be unable to damage her reputation in the eyes of those with similar views, and may actually have bolstered her public standing.

Justice White said it was “not the occasion” for him to “express any views concerning the logic or merit” of Mr Leyonhjelm’s claims.

“These may be significant issues at the trial,” he said.

He concluded there were “a number of matters” indicating it would “not be appropriate” to order Ms Hanson-Young to answer the questions.

Those matters included the “inherent imprecision” of the questions themselves, and both the relevance and “limited utility” any answer would provide for the trial.

However, Justice White permitted Mr Leyonhjelm to issue subpoenas to Senators Hinch and Griff to give evidence at trial about the comments made in Parliament.

Follow @SeanFewster