A close friend of the woman who accused Christian Porter of raping her three decades ago – allegations he strenuously denies – has told the federal court she wanted the allegations public in a bid to stop him ever becoming prime minister.
Jo Dyer, who became friends with the woman during their time as high school debaters in the 1980s, told the federal court in Sydney on Tuesday that before her death in June last year the woman, known only as Kate, had told her it would be “a measure of success for her endeavours” if Porter “did not become prime minister”.
Appearing as a witness in her case to stop Sydney barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC from acting for Porter in his high-stakes defamation bid against the ABC because of what she says is a conflict of interest, Dyer told the court that given “how difficult” it would be to seek a prosecution against Porter it would have been “some justice” for her if Porter was not able to become prime minister.
“It’s incredibly difficult to establish these matters when they involve prominent people, if at least Christian Porter [did not become] prime minister that would have helped her feel there had been some justice,” she said.
Asked by Porter’s barrister, Christopher Withers SC, whether Dyer agreed with her friend, she said she had “thought the allegation needed to be tested”.
When Withers pushed her on whether she “believed” her friend’s allegations against Porter, Dyer said: “Yes.”
“On that basis you believed Porter should not ever become prime minister?” Withers asked.
“Yes,” Dyer responded.
“And one of the things you needed [for that to happen] was for these allegations to become public?” Withers asked.
“Yes,” Dyer responded.
The cross-examination came on the second day of an expedited trial which could have significant consequences for Porter’s defamation bid against the national broadcaster.
Dyer has claimed that Chrysanthou has a conflict of interest because of a meeting the two women had late last year in relation to an article in the Australian newspaper by Janet Albrechtsen about a November ABC Four Corners episode Dyer appeared in.
Dyer claims the meeting means Chrysanthou has “confidential” information about the case which would give her an insight into her “strengths, weaknesses, honesty, knowledge and beliefs”.
Chrysanthou, a defamation specialist who has acted in a number of high-profile cases including actor Geoffrey Rush’s successful case against the Daily Telegraph, says she attended the meeting as a favour to another barrister, did not charge for her advice, and is not in possession of any confidential information.
Porter’s lawyers are attempting to show that the information alleged to have been said at the 20 November conference was either already in the public domain or had been known to both parties already. During his cross-examination of Dyer, Withers pressed her on why she had deleted Signal messages between herself and the ABC journalist Louise Milligan whose story is at the centre of the defamation claim.
Dyer said it was “partly from advice” from Milligan and “more generally I guess my filing and retention processes are somewhat chaotic and those nearest to me suggested it might be better to be more cautious [given] the sensitive nature of the matters clearly being discussed in this matter”.
Dyer said she couldn’t recall when Milligan had asked her to delete the messages, but said: “At the point at which we moved to Signal Ms Milligan had obviously reinforced this was a more confidential means of communication, I think there was a hope [that] I would delete as we went along. I can say I did not take that care with the messages and I did delete them sort of en masse some months ago.”
Because of the nature of the information alleged to have been shared, much of the testimony about what took place at the meeting was held behind closed doors.
Dyer, Macquarie Bank managing director James Hooke and solicitor Michael Bradley gave evidence on Tuesday.
On Monday Porter’s lawyers lost their bid to block a last-minute affidavit from Hooke ,which the former attorney general’s lawyer’s had argued could “derail” the timing of his case against the ABC.
Hooke, who in March released a statement revealing he had “relevant discussions” with Porter’s accuser from “mid-1988 until her death” in June 2020 and with Porter from 1992 onwards, was at the November meeting.
Though most of his evidence was held behind closed doors on Tuesday, he told the court that he had released the March statement “partly” because he had been named in two articles in the Australian and the Adelaide Advertiser.
The other reason for releasing the statement, he told the court, was because he was “aware of an article that would be appearing in the Australian that Saturday where one of the authors of that article had made threats against me through an intermediary”.
The hearing continues.
