UPDATE … I’ll show you mine but no-one should see yours … Porter struggling with too much baggage … Untoward allegations about Riverview branch of the bench … Court anonymises another lawyer in strife … Double billing at the Law Society … Theodora reports

He was used to that in the good old days when as attorney general he could sign a bit of paper to get his agents to run national security up the flagpole.

Using the courts to restore a reputation can be a tricky business. The potential for more damage is very real, even if Porter succeeds on a some of the scratchily assembled imputations: 

Porter brutally raped a 16-year-old girl in 1988; Porter anally raped a 16-year-old girl in 1988; Porter’s brutal and anal rape of a 16-year-old girl contributed to her taking her own life; Porter is reasonably suspected by police of brutally and anally raping a 16-year-old girl in 1988, warranting criminal charges being brought against him; etc. 

It’s all here.

Porter is complaining that slabs of the defence are “scandalous and vexatious” and that the schedules and a paragraph should be be struck out. 

It must be difficult in a case involving a major scandal not to have scandalous elements in the pleadings. 

Hooke was quoted in March, saying: 

“I also have what I consider to be clear recollections of relevant discussions I had with Christian Porter from April 1992 and through the mid-1990s.” 

Hooke said he would testify under oath about “relevant discussions … at any appropriately convened inquiry”.  

In March Justinian had an analysis from Artemus Jones who said that Porter’s statement of claim, “simply does not address the relevant issues with the necessary degree of precision or detail, and also appears to contain a large number of irrelevant and superfluous particulars. 

“In fact, it is something of a dog’s breakfast.” 

Already the case is proving to be a traumatic experience for the politician. His plan to be prime minister is kaput and he must be wondering what the hell he is doing as Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, where tech gurus already have said they have no respect for in him. 

It takes a PM of Schmo Morrison’s depth and quality to keep someone like Porter afloat. 

The ABC article by Louise Milligan, in which Porter is not named, reported on an historical rape allegation against a cabinet minister. 

The broadcaster wants to make the case that its conduct was reasonable in the circumstances and the article was in the public interest. 

Renee Enbom QC, told Justice Jayne Jagot this morning (Friday, May 7): 

“The principles of open justice … require that the proceedings be reported in a fair and accurate way, not in a one sided way or a way that suits one party.” 

Porter and his lawyers were trying to “control” the reporting of the case – the usual thing for a control freak. 

Justice Jagot said that a redacted version of the defence should be published, along with the applicant’s reply. There is an interim non-publication order over the contested elements of the defence until the strikeout application is heard and decided. 

The respondents say the trial itself will take six weeks and will involve 15 witnesses. 

Just after we went to press, the court released redacted versions of the defence here and the reply here. 

You can keep track of the documents on the Federal Court file, here. 

A wag has been having fun with the St Ignatius Riverview old boys page on Wikipedia. 

A carefully chronicled list of the the school’s glittering alumni has been assembled, covering Rhodes Scholarships, entertainment and the arts, law, medicine, the military, politics and sport. 

This is the feeder school for the NSW Supreme Court, with 83.99% of judges (or thereabouts) coming from the Jesuit learning factory. 

When we get to “military” we find entries as follows: 

It’s good to know, but maybe a case of too much information. 

We’ve got a new entry to add to last week’s story about an unfortunate tendency of NSW judges to anonymise and suppress the names and details of their conflicted colleagues and of legal practitioners who commit criminal offences or rack up tax debts. 

The latest contender is the law firm anonymised as ZZZ Pty Ltd, trading as ZZ and the principal of the firm who is known as Mr XX. 

In December 2018, on the last Friday before Christmas, Justice L. McCallum appointed a receiver to the law shop and ordered Christina Cassidy, described as a “former principal” of the firm, to hand over to the Law Society details of the accounts, the debts of the firm, an inventory of assets, etc. 

An affidavit from the Law Society’s Anne-Marie Foord indicates that although Ms Cassidy was nominated as the principal of the law practice, she did not provide services as a solicitor – rather the principal of another firm Mr XX arranged for her to sign documents and offered to pay her a salary and in return she would be a personal assistant to XX’s wife. 

An intriguing arrangement. 

The Law Society got involved following a complaint from a Mr Munro who said he paid $292,500 into what he thought was a trust account – except the firm didn’t have a trust account. 

“There is nothing in the material I have seen to suggest that Ms Cassidy had any involvement in those events.” 

Ms Cassidy consented to the orders made by the judge. 

Then on Wednesday (May 5, 2021) an amendment to the judgment was posted: 

“The names of a legal practice and legal practitioner associated with this decision have been anonymised.” 

So the person who “appears” to have misappropriated Mr Munro’s money is undercover, while Ms Cassidy who had nothing to do with it, remains non-anonymised. 

In relation to the appointment of a receiver she appears on the Legal Services Commissioner’s register of disciplinary action. 

Some solicitors renewing their practising tickets with the NSW Law Society have found that by magic they were also billed for membership of the society. 

As we know, membership is voluntary and some just want the ticket and don’t want to belong to the guild. 

Bingo, back comes the receipt with credit cards charged $450 for the PC fee AND $400 for membership. 

Something must be in the fine print. 

People who complain are told a refund is in the post.