Christian Porter’s barrister: conflict of interest is a storm in a tea cup

Sue Chrysanthou’s ‘very limited’, free advice to Jo Dyer as a ‘favour’ to a barrister friend sparked conflict of interest warning.

Barrister Sue Chrysanthou. Picture: Getty Images)

Lawyers for Christian Porter’s high-profile barrister say allegations she has a conflict of interest representing him in his case against the ABC are a “storm in a teacup”.

However, a court has heard defamation barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC was warned by another barrister not to accept Mr Porter’s brief because she was conflicted.

Jo Dyer, director of the Adelaide Writers Week, has sought orders in the Federal Court to stop Ms Chrysanthou representing the former attorney-general in his defamation action against the ABC. She says Ms Chrysanthou has access to confidential information related to Mr Porter’s case against the ABC that she provided to Ms Chrysanthou while she was advising her 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 had been raped by Mr Porter in 1988 when she was 16 and Mr Porter was 17. Kate committed suicide in June last year.

Mr Porter’s barrister Christopher Withers SC told the Federal Court on Monday that Ms Chrysanthou gave “some very limited advice” to Ms Dyer at a meeting on November 20 that lasted about an hour or an hour-and-a-half. The advice related to an article that appeared in The Australian newspaper, written by columnist Janet Albrechtsen, that had caused concern to Ms Dyer, he said.

The fact there had been some follow-up discussion about the advice was irrelevant, and any “supposedly confidential information” was already in the public domain, he said.

“In very short compass we say this is just a storm in a teacup,” he said.

Federal Court judge Tom Thawley is presiding over a three-day hearing, which commenced on Monday, to decide whether Ms Chrysanthou should be stopped from acting for Mr Porter.

Attendants at the key November 20 meeting included Macquarie Group senior managing director James Hooke, who was an ex-boyfriend of Mr Porter’s alleged rape victim, and media barrister Matthew Richardson.

Ms Chrysanthou had attended the meeting as a “favour” to Mr Richardson, who was friends with both Ms Chrysanthou and Mr Hooke, and she did not charge for her time — however she accepted she had a lawyer-client relationship with Ms Dyer, the court heard on Monday.

The court heard that before Ms Chrysanthou agreed to act for Mr Porter, she discussed with Mr Richardson whether she should accept the brief.

Mr Richardson had disagreed with her acting for Mr Porter — while he could not recall any specific confidential information provided at the meeting, he had said he would be surprised if confidential matters had not been discussed, according to Ms Dyer’s evidence.

In an email in late March, after Ms Dyer had objected to Ms Chrysanthou acting for Mr Porter, Mr Richardson expressed his disagreement with Ms Chrysanthou’s decision to represent the former attorney-general.

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.

Mr Withers has previously told the Federal Court it would be a “very, very big deal” for the former attorney-general to be deprived of Ms Chrysanthou’s services.

The parties spent much of Monday arguing about whether late evidence from Mr Hooke that detailed what was said at the November 20 meeting should be allowed into evidence.

Mr Withers had argued it would be unfair to allow it, because he received it on Saturday, and had not had time to gather evidence to rebut it.

However, Ms Dyer’s barrister Michael Hodge QC said the evidence would sweep away “any last vestiges of doubt” as to whether Ms Chrysanthou could continue to act in the proceedings.

Justice Thawley ruled that the evidence should be allowed into the case, because it was “central to the critical issues dividing the parties”.

Mr Withers had earlier said Ms Dyer’s legal team had provided no detail of what was said to have been confidential at that meeting, to assess whether it was in the public domain or already known to the ABC and Mr Porter, or if it was relevant to the defamation case.

Details of the confidential information that had been provided were “hopelessly inadequate”, and the court could “never find” it presented any risk of misuse.

Mr Richardson, the son of former Labor powerbroker Graham Richardson, has not been called as a witness for Ms Dyer.

Mr Withers told Justice Thawley he should draw an adverse interest against Ms Dyer as to why Mr Richardson had not been called as a witness.

However, Mr Hodge said if an adverse inference were to be drawn, Mr Richardson would have to be called.