Defamatorium … Defamation action by Gold Coast lawyers against the former premier and conveyancer general … Identification … Lawyers in general … Bikie lawyers specifically … Doorstops where the door slams in the the major’s face … Defence prepared by solicitor general, who usually advises the government about ongoing indemnity?
NOW that Labor has taken the reins in Queensland, what next for the politically saturated defamation actions involving former premier Campbell Newman?
All of which makes for the government’s preferred defamation firm, Clayton Utz, having a busy time.
The Hannay case raises some interesting points. It arose from a doorstop interview the major did at the Redcliffe Community and Arts Hub on February 6, 2014, during the Redcliffe by-election.
He was asked about comments by defence lawyers that bikies in court cases do not to turn up to court because they would be in breach of the VLAD law by associating with other bikies.
[snip]
They’re defence lawyers. They’re paid by criminal gangs, of course they’ll say and do anything to try and present their clients in the best possible light, but their clients are criminals. The Yandina Five have criminal records. They’ve been involved in drug, they’ve been caught for illegal weapons, they have thousands, well, hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cash around their homes …”
The plaintiffs says they were sufficiently identified because it was known publicly they had given advice to clients about the impact of the VLAD law on bikies associating with each other and the possibility of their arrest on new charges if they met with each other outside court.
A day later the Conveyancer General jumped in and helpfully narrowed the identification gap. Bleijie said:
“I’ve got to say I was quite disturbed when I read reports that lawyers were advocating that their clients not turn up to court because they would be arrested under the new laws. It’s quite ridiculous …
The premier was talking about a specific matter which was asked about on the Gold Coast with respect to those lawyers’ allegations, which were not true and a lot of misinformation.”
The major also went a step further in pinpointing the lawyers he said were part of “the criminal gang machine”. He accused Chris Hannay of “contempt of the magistrates court [and] interfering with the administration of justice”, by advising his bikie clients not to answer court summonses.
In their defence both Newman and Bleijie now say they didn’t identify the plaintiffs, they were just referring to “unidentified lawyers”.
See transcript in schedules one and two of defence to further amended statement of claim.
It is interesting that the solicitor general Peter Dunning settled the defence pleading.
Premier and ministers get sued for defamation all the time and the state indemnifies them when the words sued on arise from of their official duties.
However, because the minister’s or premier’s interests in defending the suit are their own, invariably an outside firm of solicitors is engaged, at the cost of the state, and a private barrister is engaged for the same reason.
The state also has an interest in the action and as it develops sometimes there is an issue whether or not the state should continue to indemnify the politician.
As new facts emerge questions can arise whether an indemnity should continue, particularly for damages. The person who advises on these questions is the solicitor general.
Can they continue to defend Newman and Bleijie now that those two dazzling politicians are out of office?
Dunners and Horto have thoughtfully annexed the transcripts of the doorstop interviews, which on the issue of identification rather shoots the major and the Boy-AG in the feet.
This is the kind of pleading that the other side may not want to have struck out.