Returning, if we may, to the foggy recollections of retired Sydney barrister Donald Grieve KC, a critical witness in the defamation action brought by Dr Munjed Al Muderis against Nine Newspapers and the 60 Minutes program. Hearings for this matter commenced last year and continued on Friday in the Federal Court, where Grieve gave evidence for Nine.
Combative evidence, too. The ageing silk very unwisely tried to spar with the always-lethal Sue Chrysanthou SC, acting for Muderis, and armed himself with a haughty, stiff-necked recalcitrance to her questions – at least at the start of the proceedings. Here’s Chrysanthou in the first few seconds on her feet just trying to establish when Grieve ceased working as a barrister.
Chrysanthou: “Mr Grieve, you retired in 2019.”
Grieve: “What is your question?”
C: “You retired in 2019.”
G: “What is your question?”
C, teeth gritted: “Is that correct?”
G: “Yes.”
This may look harmless but it was tactical, to be sure. It was what appeared to be Grieve’s attempt at courtroom sledging, not dissimilar to the trash talk of the cricket pitch although clearly more genteel. Recall, for comparison, Rod Marsh’s infamous zinger to Ian Botham (“So, how’s your wife and my kids?”) and Botham’s riposte: “Wife is fine, kids are retarded.”
But it kept happening (“What is your question?”) and after a while the patented Grieve niggle clearly got under Chrysanthou’s skin. “You don’t understand by the way I inflect my voice at the end, Mr Grieve, that I’m asking you a question?”
“No, you’re making statements, not asking questions.” Yes, on and on it went, this pompous-gittery and mansplaining – on International Women’s Day, no less! “Thank you for your advice on my cross-examination, Mr Grieve,” Chrysanthou said, “but could you please answer my question”.
The substance of the hearing eventually settled on Grieve’s recollection of conversations with Al Muderis and a handful of doctors, from whom he sought advice on osseointegration surgery – the process by which an amputee is fitted with a prosthetic limb to attain greater function and mobility.
Nine is being sued because Grieve’s daughter, Charlotte, a journalist, wrote a series of pieces alleging that Al Muderis applied sales-pressure tactics to his patients, among them her father, although Al Muderis denies this and, on Grieve’s matter in particular, his account is supported by multiple colleagues.
In fact, Grieve’s evidence could not be more at odds with that of the sworn evidence provided by specialists in the same room at the time. In the stand on Friday, Grieve struggled to recall who was in the room at all. His contention that Al Muderis said he would be in a wheelchair without imminent surgery kept jarring against the word of witness Stefan Laux and doctors Tim O’Carrigan and Razvan Stoita, each of whom have said practically the opposite – that everyone present during the consultation, including Al Muderis, were unanimous in their view that osseointegration surgery wasn’t necessary for Grieve, because his mobility was quite good; he even boasted of being able to walk for 10 out of 18 holes of golf.
“You understood at the end of that consultation,” Chrysanthou said, “that each of the orthopaedic surgeons present agreed and did not recommend osseointegration for you.”
“That is quite incorrect,” Grieve said.
Cases of distance
Two leading law firms spent Friday doing their utmost to place distance between themselves and the Australian Centre for International Justice, a non-profit established in 2019 that purports to be a specialist legal centre.
Baker McKenzie and Gilbert + Tobin are proudly listed as pro-bono supporters of the ACIJ in its most recent annual report. That would be fine, but for the remarks of ACIJ executive director Rawan Arraf.
Over the past fortnight she’s made a habit of referring to Israel as an “abomination” and a “settler colonial genocidal apartheid regime” on X, formerly known as Twitter.
In Arraf’s mind, all Israelis are settlers and, while perhaps some of the ACIJ’s work investigating atrocity crimes may be worthwhile and noble, much of its time and expense appears to be inordinately directed towards activism against Israel.
Hence, the ACIJ’s campaign in 2022 on behalf of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Australia, in which Arraf was listed as the media contact for a slew of participating entities. A year earlier the ACIJ campaigned for the Australian government to conduct an “urgent review of all trade with Israel”.
There was also a weird press release, published in November, announcing litigation to try to access information on what the ACIJ called “secret arms exports” from Australia to Israel, authorised via permits signed off by the Defence Minister. There was a great frisson of excitement over that legal filing, but then so little reporting of the case being quietly discontinued and withdrawn. This failed claim looks like the only one they’ve filed, too. So, remind us: what’s their specialty?
Gilbert + Tobin chairman Danny Gilbert, whose firm has sponsored and supported the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce, seemed utterly bemused to learn that G+T was involved with the ACIJ, saying he was unable to explain why the company was listed as a pro-bono supporter.
“They are not a pro-bono client of ours. We work with a lot of organisations. It may well be the case that we have taken referrals from them in relation to complaints people might want to make from time to time,” Gilbert said.
He added: “I don’t know why they have listed us. I will take it up with my people, and that’s all I can say. We would not support comments that would challenge the right of Israel to exist.”
Equally awkward situation for Baker McKenzie, although it was able to clarify the nature of its recent co-operation with the ACIJ. Wonder then what partners Richard Lustig and Alex Wolff think about the arrangement? A spokesman said BM was approached “at an organisational level” to provide a room for an ACIJ event in September, “which we provided, as we do for a variety of not-for-profit organisations”.
“We can confirm that we have no current work or involvement with ACIJ,” he said. “Baker McKenzie as an organisation condemns anti-Semitism in all its forms.”
And presumably there will be clients not all that happy with this assistance either.
More Coverage
Feeding Nomad diners the little white lies
Patrons don’t exactly line up for Nomad restaurants since its co-owner displayed a Nazi swastika at a rally, but an assurance he’s relinquished control of the rebadged eateries is hard to swallow.
Not targeting electoral seats: Do you think we’re simple, Simon?
In one of the most blatant cases of gaslighting voters in a while, Simon Holmes a Court has declared his Climate 200 doesn’t actually target seats come election time.