When our newest Federal Court judge had her reputation vindicated with a healthy award of damages … Clutz wrestling former partner Chris Dale every step of the way … AFP’s new deputy commissioner for capability 

Well deserved effusions all round, and nary a mention of her successful defamation action against Gerrard White. 

The litigation concerned a dispute about who should bear the cost of a Maillol print – a gift to “Mrs Turnbull”. 

In response to a communication from Markovic about the print and its framing, White fired off a series of nasty emails to a selection of politicians, lawyers, arts administrators and media figures – including P. Keating, Malcolm Turnbull, Dr Kennedy, E. Capon. 

The content of the emails form part of Justice David Levine’s reasons in 2004 in awarding compensatory and aggravated damages to the plaintiff of $232,800.  

Justice (as he then was) Levine found that the Clayton Utz partner enjoyed “a general settled reputation in the areas of honesty, integrity and professional competence”. 

She was justifiably hurt and distressed by the emails and her reasonable request for an apology had been refused. Levine found that White was motivated by “acute and express” malice. 

However, there was no evidence before the court as to any actual damage to Markovic’s reputation as a result of White’s flurry of dyspeptic emails. 

According to the Gazette of Law & Journalism, Levine’s reasoning in Markovic, on the legislative requirement for compatibility between damages for defamation and personal injury, was followed in Jamoo v Nationwide News.  

While Clayton Utz is fresh in our minds, it’s worth mentioning that the firm is seeking special leave from the High Court to appeal the Victorian CA’s latest interlocutory decision in the long-running case brought by former partner Christopher Dale.  

Dale is claiming a breach of contract after the Clutz board dropped him in 2005.  

In July, Vic Appeals upheld an interlocutory order from Clyde Croft for a Protean Holdings split in the forthcoming trial, so that Dale will not be required to answer questions relating to unproven (and potentially unlawful) conduct.      

The court, with Pamela Tate doing all the writing, also held that the privilege against self-incrimination at the trial should be available to Dale. 

The giant law shop had a long-winded battle over retaining Allan Myers as its brief. Dale claimed that Myers had given him advice about some of the issues that would be in contention during the forthcoming trial. Myers said he had no memory of advising Dale. 

Justice Elizabeth Hollingsworth granted an injunction to prevent Myers appearing for Clutz, and the firm eventually withdrew its appeal. 

Some of the issues at the trial go back to the way the firm handled the Rolah McCabe tobacco litigation and the leaking of embarrassing internal firm documents, which found that two of the partners involved in the litigation had behaved unprofessionally. 

The law shop has now launched itself upon the High Court, claiming that Clyde Croft and Vic Appeals got it wrong in deciding that Dale could “split” his case between issues going to procedural fairness on the one hand, and the firm’s allegations on the other. 

Clutz also contends that the CA erred in finding that privileges against self-incrimination and self-exposure to a penalty are available to the plaintiff. 

Dale needs a knighthood for stamina and determination. 

On and on it goes. 

Ramzi Jabbour – that name rings a bell. 

Bells started to ring on September 3 when Michael Keenan, Minister for Justice and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Counter Terrorism, announced that Jabbour had been appointed a deputy commissioner of the Australian Federal Plod (AFP). 

His title is Deputy Commissioner Capability. 

It was Ramzi who came in for a birching from former judge John Clarke in his report on the magnificent stitch-up that was the Dr Mohamed Haneef affair. 

In July 2007, Haneef was arrested in Brisbane on suspicion of terrorism, his second cousins having been involved in an attack on Glasgow airport. 

He was the first person held under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2005, and to have the period of detention extended for 12 days, without charge. 

There was documentary evidence that PM John Howard conspired with Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews to milk the Haneef case politically, for all it was worth. 

Within two days of Haneef’s arrest, ASIO found there was nothing to pin on the Indian doctor – but that was not good enough for Jabbour, who was running the case for the federal plod. 

Clarke found that Jabber had lost objectivity and was “unable to see that the evidence he regarded as highly incriminating in fact amounted to very little”. 

At the time Jabbour was the AFP’s commander of domestic counter terrorism. He kept from the magistrate, who ordered the detention of the doctor, evidence that might have been of assistance to Haneef.

Clarke found that Jabbour could not have had a “reasonable belief” as to his suspicions. 

Stephen Keim, Haneef’s barrister, explained aspects of the case at an ICJ seminar in April 2008. 

Just as Clarke was commissioned by attorney general Robert McClelland to conduct his inquiry, Justice Peter McClellan, CJ at CL in the NSW Supremes, was preparing his reasons in the defamation case brought against The Daily Smellograph by former Guantánamo inmate, Mamdouh Habib.  

Jabbour was a witness for the Smello contesting the plaintiff’s claims that he had been tortured and mistreated while in custody. 

Jabbour had been one of two federal plods who interviewed Habib at the Bay in May 2002. 

Although the prisoner’s hands and feet were shackled and he was chained to the floor, Ramzi told the court he didn’t think Habib’s position was degrading. 

He also said he was under no obligation to caution Habib, nor did he agree that a four-and-half-hour interview consisting of 1,670 questions was excessive. 

Six questions a minute was “not unusual”. In fact, it emerged that the interview in May 2002 ran for 13 hours. Jabbour thought that ASIO may have interviewed the prisoner on the same day he did. 

The trial judge accepted Jabbour’s evidence. In March 2010, Habib’s appeal was successful and McClellan’s judgment and orders were set aside.  

A month before McClellan’s findings in Habib v Nationwide News, Jabbour applied for, and was granted, an interim control order against David Hicks.  

Jabbour contended that the order was necessary because it would substantially assist in preventing an act of terrorism. 

In February this year, the US Court of Military Commission Review quashed Hicks’ conviction on a charge of providing material support for terrorism. 

He had pleaded guilty, as a result of coercion, to an offence that didn’t exist at the time he was said to have committed it. 

It was only a matter of time before the Abbott government recognised Jabbour’s capability.