Christian Porter’s barrister Sue Chrysanthou was told friends of alleged rape victim like ‘cult members’

Christian Porter’s high-profile barrister was warned not to act for him against the ABC because friends of his alleged victim would make things ‘very bad’ for her, a court has heard.

Sue Chrysanthou SC outside the Supreme Court in Sydney. Picture: NCA NewsWire/Joel Carrett

Christian Porter’s high-profile barrister was warned not to act for him in his case against the ABC because friends of his alleged rape victim were behaving like they were in a “cult” and would make things “very bad” for her, a court has heard.

Jo Dyer, director of the Adelaide Writers Week, has sought orders in the Federal Court to stop barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC from representing the former Attorney-General in his defamation action against the ABC.

She alleges Ms Chrysanthou has access to confidential information relevant to the case that was provided to Ms Chrysanthou at a meeting on November 20 while she was advising Ms Dyer on another matter.

Ms Dyer is not a party to Mr Porter’s defamation case against the ABC.

However, she was a friend of a woman, known as Kate, who alleged she was raped by Mr Porter in 1988 when she was 16 and Mr Porter was 17. Kate committed suicide in June last year.

Attendants at the November 20 meeting included Macquarie Bank senior managing director James Hooke, who was Kate’s ex-boyfriend, and media barrister Matthew Richardson.

Ms Chrysanthou told the Federal Court on Wednesday that Mr Richardson — who is friends with both Mr Hooke and Ms Chrysanthou — told Ms Chrysanthou he was “very upset” about her agreeing to act for Mr Porter in his case against the ABC.

Jo Dyer, director of the Adelaide Writers Week, has sought orders in the Federal Court to stop Sue Chrysanthou SC from representing Christian Porter against the ABC. Picture: NCA NewsWire/Joel Carrett

“He told me that he was worried for me and that his friends were obsessed or behaving like a cult on this topic and that they wouldn’t let it go and they would talk to the media and make it very bad for me,” she said.

“He was very upset about how that would impact me and how that would impact him.”

He tried to talk her out of it because of what a “mess” it would be in the press and he was concerned they would defame her, she said.

Mr Richardson subsequently emailed her to tell her that he believed she had a conflict of interest accepting Mr Porter’s brief, she said.

However, she said she consulted with two former NSW Bar Association presidents and other silks about whether she had a potential conflict of interest and “everyone disagreed with Matthew”.

A decision about whether Ms Chrysanthou should be stopped from acting for Mr Porter in his case against the ABC could be delivered as early as Thursday, at the end of an urgent four-day hearing of the case, Federal Court judge Tom Thawley told the parties on Wednesday.

He said his preference was to deliver his judgment “ex tempore” or on the spot.

Mr Porter, now Industry Minister, is suing the ABC and journalist Louise Milligan over an online article published on February 26, which reported that an unnamed cabinet minister was facing historical rape allegations.

Mr Porter, 50, outed himself as the unnamed minister five days later and launched the defamation action on March 15.

The Federal Court has previously heard Ms Chrysanthou agreed to the November 20 meeting with Ms Dyer as a “favour” to Mr Richardson, and she did not charge for her time.

The meeting related to an article published in The Australian by columnist Janet Albrechtsen, which Ms Dyer believed had defamed her, and the drafting of a concerns notice to the newspaper.

Former Attorney-General Christian Porter. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Gary Ramage

Ms Chrysanthou had follow-up communications in late January and February with Ms Dyer, Mr Hooke and Ms Dyer’s solicitor, Marque managing partner Michael Bradley, after discussions with The Australian’s lawyer Thomson Geer partner Justin Quill in late January. She also received a phone call from Mr Hooke on March 4 about the matter but did not return his call.

Ms Chrysanthou told the court that when she was offered the brief to act for Mr Porter she immediately thought of the November 20 meeting.

She said her concern was whether she had been told any confidential information.

However, after thinking about the meeting, and checking her emails and records, she did not believe she had been told anything confidential at the meeting.

She said the meeting lasted no more than an hour, in response to a suggestion from Ms Dyer’s barrister that it took 1.5 hours.

Ms Chrysanthou was asked by Ms Dyer’s barrister, Michael Hodge QC, if a letter sent on her behalf in April was aimed at conveying that there could be “very serious consequences” for Ms Dyer if she commenced the legal action against her.

She replied that the reason the letter mentioned seeking security for costs against Ms Dyer was because it had been a requirement of her insurer.

Ms Chrysanthou said her costs had been estimated at more than $150,000 for defending Ms Dyer’s legal action, and she had been told that Ms Dyer had said she could not even pay for one hour of a silk’s time.

She said she had also been told by her own solicitor, Kennedys partner Patrick George, that in the exchanges of letters with Ms Dyer’s legal team “it was absolutely not clear what the confidential information was”. Mr George had told her he was concerned it was impossible to meet Ms Dyer’s case “because there was no understanding of precisely what was alleged to be confidential”.

Mr Porter’s barrister Christopher Withers SC has previously told the court it would be a “very, very big deal” if the former attorney-general were to be deprived of Ms Chrysanthou’s services.

He has also said the case was a “storm in a tea cup” and that any “supposedly confidential information” was already in the public domain.

The court heard that Mr Hooke initially wanted to keep secret his involvement in the November 20 hearing — which Ms Chrysanthou said “surprised” and “concerned” her, because she had already disclosed his attendance to Mr Porter and his legal team.

Ms Dyer’s lawyers had also initially wanted the whole proceeding kept confidential — a move Ms Chrysanthou said would have concerned her because she did not want journalists seeing her name on court lists and wondering why she was being sued.

Mr Withers has previously questioned whether any confidential information conveyed at the meeting belonged to Mr Hooke, who he said had no right to seek to restrain Ms Chrysanthou because she was “never his lawyer”.

Mr Withers fought hard on Monday — and lost — to try to exclude a late affidavit from Mr Hooke which outlined details of the November 20 meeting.

Mr Hodge told the court Mr Hooke’s evidence would sweep away “any last vestiges of doubt” that Ms Chrysanthou was privy to confidential information at the meeting.