ABC apology in court over premature tweet on Christian Porter

Within hours of Christian Porter discontinuing his defamation case against the ABC, the broadcaster’s lawyers hurriedly drafted an apology to the Federal Court.

Sally Neighbour jumped the gun in her eagerness to control the public narrative.

Within hours of Christian Porter discontinuing his defamation case against the ABC on Monday, the broadcaster’s lawyers were forced to hurriedly draft an apology to the Federal Court for an ill-timed — and inaccurate — tweet by Four Corners executive producer Sally Neighbour.

“BREAKING NOW! Christian Porter is dropping his defamation case against the ABC. No money was paid. We stand by our stories. #4 Corners #auspol,” Neighbour posted on the social media platform.

In her eagerness to claim the upper hand in the battle to control the public narrative, Neighbour had jumped the gun.

Judge Jayne Jagot had not yet formally finalised the matter, and the ABC’s lawyers had to issue an apology for Neighbour’s premature triumphalism.

“We regret that a statement about the settlement in this matter has been issued by the ABC before Her Honour had an opportunity to consider and make the consent orders,” read the note to the court.

 

It was an embarrassing postscript to the legal saga for the ABC, which had publicly pledged, as recently as last week, that it would conduct itself as a “model litigant” throughout the matter; that is, as a government body engaged in litigation, it should not be “out to get” people.

While the defamation case itself has been discontinued, the battle continues to rage outside the courtroom, as both parties vie to claim a moral victory.

The Australian understands Mr Porter will receive a sum in the vicinity of $100,000 from the ABC, but a spokeswoman for the national broadcaster denied this.

“The ABC has not and will not pay any amount to Mr Porter,” the spokeswoman said on Tuesday night.

Barrister Sue Chrysanthou. Picture: Gaye Gerard

However, in the next line of the statement, she conceded: “The only costs to be paid by the ABC, apart from its own, are mediation and related costs.”

Mr Porter’s lawyer Rebekah Giles said she wasn’t at liberty to disclose details of any monies paid but she said she could reveal that the politician’s legal costs for the mediation were about $10,000.

It’s understood Mr Porter’s mediation costs arising from last week’s legal discussions were more modest because his star barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC had, by that stage, been ordered by the court to relinquish the brief, and was therefore not involved in the mediation.

The ABC and Mr Porter are unable to comment publicly on the awarding of costs, under the terms of the settlement. However, an exception to the confidentiality clause is if questions are put to the ABC by a committee of parliament. Such questions are expected next time managing director David Anderson comes before a Senate estimates hearing.

Following her initial tweet on Monday afternoon, Neighbour corrected herself, saying “no damages” — rather than “no money” — had been paid to Mr Porter. However, as a senior legal figure said, “any money paid by one side to another during a legal dispute is a payment, by its very definition”.

Christian Porter during Question Time at Parliament House in Canberra on Tuesday. Picture: Martin Ollman

Four Corners reporter Louise Milligan also tweeted on Monday afternoon: “The ABC will pay him no damages. I stand by my journalism.”

Mr Porter did not comment further on Tuesday, but on Monday outside court he said he was satisfied the ABC “regretted the outcome of that article”, and “that the accusations which were contained in the article could not be proved to either a civil or a criminal standard”.

On Tuesday night, the ABC countered through the spokeswoman: “As is plain from reading the editor’s note, the ABC has not said that it regrets the 26 February article. In fact, the ABC stands by the importance of the article, which reported on matters of significant public interest. The article remains online without any amendments.”

Mr Porter said the result was a “humiliating backdown” for the ABC. However, he received no apology, no compensation for his hurt feelings or damaged reputation, and the article is still online — with a clarifying note.

Both parties are heavily ­relying on semantics to win the public relations war. Eventually, the truth about how much Mr Porter received from the ABC will find its way into the public domain. But until then, Mr Porter, along with Milligan, Neighbour and the ABC itself, will seek to claim ­victory in a battle that has left deep scars on the Morrison government’s former Attorney-General, and questions over the fairness of the ABC’s conduct and its journalism.

ADDITIONAL REPORTING: SOPHIE ELSWORTH