Big defamation action grips Banana-Benders … Concrete Kings v Mouth from the South … Big Al Jones doubles down … Taxpayers pick up the tab for Can Do’s and Jiving Jarrod’s apology-free zone 

The state funded settlement of the Hannay v Newman & Bleijie defamation action does not entirely deprive Banana-Benders of exciting front-row seats at large-scale defamation productions. 

Waiting in the wings is Wagner v Jones & Cater – a $10 million whopper brought by four super-rich Wagner brothers in relation to more than 30 broadcasts by Alan Jones with additional contributions from Murdoch hack Nick (Train Crash) Cater. 

The Wagners have an estimated worth of about $750 million and they are gunning for Jones, Cater, Harbour Radio and Radio 4BC. There are other defamation proceedings against the batty Spectator Australia over its “Dam Busters” story and against Channel Nine’s 60 Junkets. 

There’s probably enough action there to keep a large slice of the law business occupied for the next decade. 

The nub of the case against the defendants concern their claims that the Toowoomba concrete barons are responsible for the condition of a quarry that exacerbated the extent of the 2011 Grantham floods, and caused the deaths of 12 people. 

Jones went further and said that the Wagners were in cahoots with various Coalition adornments – Barnaby Joyce, Warren Truss and the then local MP Ian Macfarlane – to cover up the family’s culpability.  

Both inquiries concluded that the condition of the quarry was not a significant contributor to exacerbating the flooding and therefore the Wagners were not responsible for the deaths of 12 people. 

At a news conference at the release of his report, Sofronoff said: 

“There were only two relevant man-made structures. One was the quarry pit and the associated embankment and the second [was] the railway embankment that has been there for about 100 years. 

Both had insignificant evident effect, measurable effects but insignificant, that is to say if they weren’t there nothing would have been different.

I found that the quarry did not play any role in the flood.”

He added that the Wagners had been unfairly targeted as the culprit for the flood.

“I think they were unjustly blamed by some people and I think they were viciously blamed by some elements of the media and they shouldn’t have been.” 

Quite smartly after that the Wagners commenced their defamation proceedings claiming that the defendants had conducted a “disgusting campaign of vilification, bullying and intimidation to prevent the truth coming out”. 

But guess what – Jones, the broadcasting companies and Train Crash are doubling down and pleading truth to a number of the plaintiffs’ important imputations. 

Jones & Co must have more evidence, otherwise they would not have embarked on this course. Naturally, the truth defence will make the trial even more fascinating because it means that the questions about the condition of the quarry will have to be raked over anew. 

Rob Anderson is acting for the defendants, while Tom Blackburn from Sydney is for the plaintiffs, with Patrick McCafferty alongside – Patrick being the nephew of Daubney J.   

One friendly local suggests that the best thing for this forthcoming all-star trial would be to have it heard in a small courthouse on the Darling Downs, from where Little Alan and the Wagnarians both sprung. 

It might be over more quickly if the silks could bunk down in an old dormitory used by FIFO oil and gas crews. 

One wonders if Luke Shaw is still around to guide a jury’s deliberations.  

Back to Hannay v Newman & Bliejie, which in true banana-bending style has involved a mighty half-million-plus dollar taxpayer-funded settlement in favour of the two solicitors who run the criminal law shop on the Gold Coast – Christopher, and his son Daniel, Hannay. 

At the time of the furore over the anti-gangs laws, Newman said of criminal defence lawyers: 

“These people are hired guns. They take money from people who sell drugs to our teenagers and young people. 

Yes, everybody’s got a right to be defended under the law but you’ve got to see it for what it is, they are part of the machine, part of the criminal gang machine and they will see, say and do anything to defend their clients and try to get them off or indeed progress their sort of case, their dishonest case.” 

Solicitor general Peter Dunning drew up the defence for Newman and Bleijie and in the process, according to reports, accused the plaintiffs of perverting the course of justice, a claim that aggravated the damages.   

When it came to settlement time, Dunning had to back out, otherwise he would have been conflicted, acting for both the previous premier and AG and for the state. 

Tubby Callinan was brought in to mediate and the defendants made it clear that there would be no public apology, which was reflected in the $525,000 payout.  

Jarrod was incandescent that the settlement details had leaked and has set the bloodhounds from the Crime and Corruption Commission onto tracking down the source. 

Having pointed the finger at the Hannays and thereby giving the defamation action extra legs, the boy wonder then wanted to finger the snout who shopped the amount of money it was costing taxpayers to get him and Can Do off the hook. 

After the horse had bolted premier Anastasia Palaszczuk announced that there would be a change to the way the state indemnified ministers in defamation proceedings.  

It is now a requirement that unless the minister takes steps to mitigate the damages the state can “amend or withdraw” the indemnity.  

Under the previous policy it was just a case of “no apology – let the punters pay”. 

Maybe Jarrod at his next performance at the Caloundra RSL Club can belt out Elt’s number, “Sorry seems to be the hardest word”.