Seven blocks release of ‘humiliating’ docs in case against ex-producer Amelia Saw

An ex-Spotlight producer is locked in a battle with her former employer over whether ‘embarrassing’ documents containing the network’s ‘dirty linen’ should be aired publicly.

Amelia Saw, a former journalist, is suing Channel 7 over her time working for Seven’s controversial Spotlight program. Picture: Supplied

An ex-Seven Spotlight producer has become locked in a tense battle with her former employer over whether “embarrassing” documents containing the network’s “dirty linen” should be aired publicly.

Seven is attempting to suppress critical documents submitted by its former employee, Amelia Saw, in a matter filed in the fair work division of the Federal Court.

The network’s application to suppress the documents – which the court has heard could be the source of “humiliation” and “embarrassment” for the network – is opposed by Ms Saw, as well as media organisations Nine, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and News Corp – the owner of this masthead.

Seven is also seeking to strike out three paragraphs contained in documents filed by Ms Saw which include “salacious” emails which they say cannot lawfully be included in her pleading.

The Federal Court on Friday morning also heard arguments over whether Ms Saw’s statement of claim should be suppressed ahead of a court ordered confidential mediation set down for October 31.

Seven’s barrister Kate Eastmann SC argued the release of the statement of claim would prejudice the administration of justice, because Ms Saw’s allegations laid out in her statement of claim would be published broadly before the network’s defence is released.

“The right to a fair trial is not a star chamber where one party says ‘here are our allegations’ and then posts them up … on the town hall’,” Ms Eastmann said, arguing the release of the documents would “switch the onus of proof” onto her client.

“The process of open justice is to give (Ms Saw) every opportunity to prove the allegations she has advanced … but it follows that those responding in the case participate in the fair trial and publish their response to the allegation.”

The Seven Network is being sued by ex-employee Amelia Saw. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Nicki Connolly

Ms Eastmann also said the release of the statement of claim would result in a confidential mediation occurring “in a fish bowl” where “no-one knows what’s going on in that room but everyone knows what might be discussed”.

“At least on one side only,” she said.

But Ms Saw’s counsel Philip Boncarto said Seven wished to suppress the documents to “avoid embarrassment”.

“In our respectful submission the substance of this application is Channel 7 seeks in affect to avoid embarrassment,” he argued, saying that embarrassment “never should be a basis” for a suppression order.

Mr Boncarto said his client was not making a “strategic decision” in opposing the application, in order to have the statement of claim aired publicly.

“My client is not taking a strategic position, she’s taking an entirely principled one,” he said.

He also argued that if the statement of claim were to be released and published widely, they would be published only as a series of allegations.

“All that is going to be publicised is allegations … (we are) confident that the public understands the distinction between a mere allegation and a finding of fact,” he said, which would provide “little if any prejudice” to Seven, especially considering they have already released a public statement rejecting Ms Saw’s claims.

Solicitor Amelia Causley Todd, acting for the media organisations, echoed Mr Boncarto’s submissions, as well as adding that the onus is on Seven to prove the “high bar” of necessity is met when making the suppression application.

Judge Nye Perram acknowledged Ms Causley Todd was on the back foot in arguing against the suppression, but did not allow her access to any of the documents in question.

Ms Saw and Seven are also in disagreement over whether three paragraphs included in Ms Saw’s amended statement of claim should be permitted to be filed.
The court heard the paragraphs include emails that related to a “complaint” made at Seven.

Ms Eastmann was highly critical of the inclusion of the “salacious communications” in the amended statement of claim, considering Ms Saw would have known they could be obtained by other media outlets.

“The criticism is levelled at the use of extracting large slabs in those particular paragraphs and particularly putting them in knowing there is an interest in obtaining the documents,” she said.

According to the Federal Court rules, when submitting pleadings in the Federal Court, parties should only submit “material facts”, not evidence. Ms Eastmann also argued the paragraphs go “well beyond material facts”.

Mr Boncarto said the “characterisation of those emails is a matter in issue” and they should be allowed.

“We do not accept Your Honour would exercise Your Honour’s discretion to strike out … given all they do is set out the particular emails which are material and relied upon by my client in full,” he said.
Justice Perram appeared to take issue with Mr Boncarto’s submissions, saying the emails are not a “material fact”.

Mr Boncarto eventually conceded the paragraphs were not material facts, but said “that doesn’t mean Your Honour would exercise Your Honour’s discretion to disallow it”.

Justice Perram has reserved judgment on both issues.

“I’ve been waiting to write something about this topic for some time so I will reserve my decision,” he said.