It’s incredibly depressing when a good court case is snatched away from us, with the parties suddenly securing a secret settlement and bringing down the curtain on all the drama.
So it was with Rachelle Louise’s defamation case against the Daily Telegraph. It disappeared from view on only the fourth day of trial – over a week ago – just as a spellbound public, and no doubt a jury whose incredulity must have been increasing with each passing day, were getting into the rhythm of the plaintiff’s evidence.
Undoubtedly there’s a public service to be performed by recapping the highlights. After all, defamation cases are the fascinating point at which the law, the conduct of the media and a plaintiff’s sense of self all intersect.
The trial experience is akin to riding a tiger, unsure exactly where the beast will take you or whether you’ll fall off and get mauled in the process.
Louise v the Tele was played out against the backdrop of a major criminal trial that took place in 2013. Louise was the former inamorata of Simon Gittany, who’s now serving a 26-year prison sentence after having been convicted of murdering his former girlfriend, Lisa Harnum, by “offloading” her from a 15th floor balcony in Sydney.
Louise is now a law student with a strong sense of justice. Her aim is to be a barrister because, “I want to help people.”
After his conviction, the Tele published two stories concentrating on the life and times of Rachelle Louise: “Diamonds, guns and Gittany: killer’s lover unmasked” and “Rachelle Louise’s new look as she waits for a bus in Surry Hills”.
She pleaded that five defamatory imputations, or meanings, arose from those articles: she was a stripper, she was a prostitute, she was a woman of loose morals, she is a deluded person because she believes convicted killer Gittany is innocent, and she is a ridiculous person.
A further article was published online in February 2014, “Rachelle Louise should show some respect for the dead”. She pleaded a further five defamatory imputations from that piece.
Nationwide News, the publisher of the Telegraph, pleaded the defences of truth, honest opinion, offer of amends and qualified privilege (statutory and common law).
Tellingly, the truth defence was not pleaded for the “stripper” and “prostitute” imputations.
Counsel for the plaintiff, Clive Evatt, kicked off by saying the newspaper’s articles were “The worst example of gutter journalism imaginable ... False allegation after false allegation ... The misquotes are horrific.”
Evatt, never one to underplay his hand, also told the jury that his client is actually a “modern-day Joan of Arc ... She stands up to the press, to the critics ... Not every young woman is brave enough.”
He said that Telegraph journalist Clementine Cuneo had portrayed his client as “an airhead, a bimbo, an immoral wicked person”.
In evidence-in-chief Louise denied the key claims in Cuneo’s reports. She had not been a model or a wanna-be actress, she had never worked as a stripper at the Spearmint Rhino Club in Las Vegas, she has never “tongue kissed” Woody Harrelson, she had not received a diamond necklace from a dinner date.
The articles had been particularly hurtful because “everyone I know reads the Telegraph”.
“Random people in the street accosted me and said, ‘Show us your tits, how much? Now Simon’s in jail you can go back to being a prostitute.’ ”
She said the newspaper’s claim that she worked as a “masseuse in London” implied she was a brothel worker. Instead, she was engaged by a company called Angel Squad to massage the shoulders of men and women at “big parties in nightclubs”.
She left after five events because the atmosphere was inappropriate, “being propositioned by men who are drunk”.
Under cross-examination, Joan of Arc’s denials became a lot less certain. Photographic and video evidence was produced of Louise in various poses. She said these were “promotions” – not modelling jobs.
Later she agreed she could have been looking for extra income “by working as an actress”. In any event it was wrong of the Telegraph to describe her as “an aspiring model”.
In an interview she gave to a Los Angeles radio station in 2012, she told how a man had brought her a “white diamond and gold necklace” and how she used men to meet celebrities and enjoy the “perks” of travelling the world as a single woman. “Stuff was pretty much paid for ... bars and stuff.”
Pressed about the necklace, she told Matt Collins QC, for Nationwide News, that she was “exaggerating” in the radio interview, not lying. “It’s just two women having a chat. We’re just having fun.”
On day three, 45 minutes of settlement negotiations got under way, but there was no agreement and it was back to Louise’s cross-examination.
In her evidence-in-chief she had claimed that Clementine Cuneo did not tell her she was a journalist when she was first approached outside the court during Gittany’s trial.
This is where social media takes a role in contradicting carefully curated versions of events. Facebook messages between the two showed that in general terms Louise knew what the journalist was up to. Cuneo told her what the angle would be:
“It’s basically that a glamorous woman accompanying Simon to court is a model and actor who once starred in Underbelly!”
Nor did the plaintiff appear to have an issue with a the use of a striking photo taken from Facebook: “Did you use a picture of me from the page? I hope it’s one I like lol! Xx.”
One of the intriguing aspects of the case concerned the imputation that the plaintiff was deluded because she believes Gittany is innocent. Evatt told the court, “She’s contributed her life savings to Mr Gittany’s defence – $90,000. Her father put in $80,000 and her mother borrowed from friends.”
CCTV footage was played to the court, obtained by Louise after Gittany’s sentencing. She said it disproved the evidence at the criminal trial of eyewitness Joshua Rathmell, who saw a black object being “offloaded” from a balcony of an apartment building opposite Hyde Park at the relevant time.
She also drew a diagram for the jury, seeking to explain that it was impossible for Gittany to have thrown Lisa Harnum to her death. In fact, Louise was convinced of Gittany’s innocence “well before the trial date”.
Collins took her through the judge’s “damning findings” about Gittany. Had she questioned him about Justice Lucy McCallum’s statement that he had given false evidence at his trial?
Yes, she had. “What did he say?”
“I can’t remember,” Louise said.
Talk of saving money while working at the Commonwealth Bank must have prompted the defence lawyers to subpoena her bank accounts. Shortly afterwards settlement negotiations recommenced and on the fourth day of the District Court hearing there was a breakthrough.
The same day her action against the Daily Mail had been settled – on terms not to be disclosed. “We’ve shortened this matter and I think we should get the jury into the court,” Clive Evatt told Judge Gibson.
HER HONOUR: Why don’t you tell me how you shortened it and then I’ll work out what to tell the jury?
EVATT: I came to an agreement with my friend.
HER HONOUR: I thought your client was Joan of Arc.
EVATT: We’ve settled the matter, and I have to make an announcement and tell your Honour what the terms are.
With the jury back in court, Evatt said:
I’ve got an announcement to make. Between November 2013 and February 2014 The Daily Telegraph reported that Rachelle Louise had previously worked as a stripper. This was incorrect. Rachelle Louise and The Daily Telegraph have settled their dispute and both parties are satisfied with the result. Each party to the proceedings consents to the discontinuance.
At least that was the “stripper” allegation out of the way. Judge Gibson made no orders as to costs and directed that previous costs orders be discharged.
Sadly, we didn’t get to hear from journalist Clementine Cuneo, who is now living in Singapore. From her time as a journalist working in Bathurst she was convicted of stalking and harassment. There would be little doubt that Clive Evatt would have scored a few home runs had he got her in the witness box.
