This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/film/live/2020/jul/02/geoffrey-rush-defamation-case-federal-court-decision-appeal-live

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Geoffrey Rush appeal: Daily Telegraph and Nationwide News lose defamation case against actor – live news Geoffrey Rush appeal: Daily Telegraph and Nationwide News lose defamation case against actor – as it happened
(32 minutes later)
Actor to be awarded full $2.9m in damages after judges reject all publisher’s grounds of appeal, including for a retrial, that costs be reduced and that it defamed Rush. Follow the latest updatesActor to be awarded full $2.9m in damages after judges reject all publisher’s grounds of appeal, including for a retrial, that costs be reduced and that it defamed Rush. Follow the latest updates
And here is our news wrap of the decision today.
With that, we’ll be closing the blog. Thanks for reading.
If you wish to read more blogs, you can turn over to our Australia coronavirus live blog for the rest of the day:
Of course, this may not be the end of the road for the case.Of course, this may not be the end of the road for the case.
Nationwide News and the Daily Telegraph can, technically, appeal to the high court. The first step would be to apply for special leave to appeal.Nationwide News and the Daily Telegraph can, technically, appeal to the high court. The first step would be to apply for special leave to appeal.
There has been no indication that the newspaper will do so yet. The newspaper would have to identify grounds of appeal, and there is no guarantee the high court would necessarily take it.
There has been no indication that the newspaper will appeal yet.
The editor of the Daily Telegraph, Ben English, has said the verdict today has “exposed the inadequacies of Australia’s defamation laws”.The editor of the Daily Telegraph, Ben English, has said the verdict today has “exposed the inadequacies of Australia’s defamation laws”.
He said in a statement:He said in a statement:
The appeal court has also upheld the original judge’s finding that there was insufficient evidence that Rush intentionally groped Norvill’s breast.The appeal court has also upheld the original judge’s finding that there was insufficient evidence that Rush intentionally groped Norvill’s breast.
The Daily Telegraph had submitted this as part of their defence of truth, and Norvill had testified in court that during a rehearsal, when she had her eyes closed, Rush “stroked down across my right side of my right breast and on to my hip”.The Daily Telegraph had submitted this as part of their defence of truth, and Norvill had testified in court that during a rehearsal, when she had her eyes closed, Rush “stroked down across my right side of my right breast and on to my hip”.
The newspaper appealed that the trial judge, Michael Wigney, had been wrong in discounting the evidence of actor Mark Winter, who testified in support of Norvill.The newspaper appealed that the trial judge, Michael Wigney, had been wrong in discounting the evidence of actor Mark Winter, who testified in support of Norvill.
In the original judgment, Wigney accepted the evidence of Rush that he “never intentionally touched Norvill’s breast” and the evidence of director Neil Armfield, and actors Robyn Nevin and Helen Buday that they did not see this.In the original judgment, Wigney accepted the evidence of Rush that he “never intentionally touched Norvill’s breast” and the evidence of director Neil Armfield, and actors Robyn Nevin and Helen Buday that they did not see this.
Armfield said he had been watching the stage “like a hawk” and his eyes did not leave the stage.Armfield said he had been watching the stage “like a hawk” and his eyes did not leave the stage.
Fellow cast member Winter testified in favour of Norvill, saying he had witnessed Rush “cupping” his hand around the “side and bottom” of Norvill’s left breast.Fellow cast member Winter testified in favour of Norvill, saying he had witnessed Rush “cupping” his hand around the “side and bottom” of Norvill’s left breast.
But in the original judgment, Wigney said there were inconsistencies between his testimony and Norvill’s – for example that Norvill said it was her right breast and Winter said it was her left.But in the original judgment, Wigney said there were inconsistencies between his testimony and Norvill’s – for example that Norvill said it was her right breast and Winter said it was her left.
The appeal court today has upheld the trial judge’s finding that, on the balance of probabilities, he accepted Rush’s evidence.The appeal court today has upheld the trial judge’s finding that, on the balance of probabilities, he accepted Rush’s evidence.
They wrote:They wrote:
In fact, the appeal judges have ruled that the estimation that Rush would lose two years of work was “optimistic”, and they say it could have been more.In fact, the appeal judges have ruled that the estimation that Rush would lose two years of work was “optimistic”, and they say it could have been more.
The court has said that the “ferocity and the unrefined responses of the #MeToo movement” mean that Rush could have been out of work for even longer.The court has said that the “ferocity and the unrefined responses of the #MeToo movement” mean that Rush could have been out of work for even longer.
Now on to the costs. Rush was initially awarded $2.9m in damages – an Australian record.Now on to the costs. Rush was initially awarded $2.9m in damages – an Australian record.
This was a combination of the personal hurt and injury he suffered due to the articles (non-economic damage), the work he lost before the trial due to the articles (past economic loss), and future work he would lose due to the articles (future economic loss), and then interest.This was a combination of the personal hurt and injury he suffered due to the articles (non-economic damage), the work he lost before the trial due to the articles (past economic loss), and future work he would lose due to the articles (future economic loss), and then interest.
The Telegraph argued that the damages were “manifestly excessive”.The Telegraph argued that the damages were “manifestly excessive”.
They argued that Rush should not have been awarded damages over a period of two years of future lost work, because the evidence of his own agent was that Rush would receive new work within one year.They argued that Rush should not have been awarded damages over a period of two years of future lost work, because the evidence of his own agent was that Rush would receive new work within one year.
They also said the judge had erred in following the precedent of Wilson v Bauer Media, where actor Rebel Wilson was initially awarded $4.5m in damages.They also said the judge had erred in following the precedent of Wilson v Bauer Media, where actor Rebel Wilson was initially awarded $4.5m in damages.
But the appeal court rejected all these arguments.But the appeal court rejected all these arguments.
They said that Wilson had initially been awarded $650,000 for non-economic loss, and this was reduced, not because it was “manifestly excessive”, but because “the trial judge had made errors of fact supporting the findings of aggravating conduct”.They said that Wilson had initially been awarded $650,000 for non-economic loss, and this was reduced, not because it was “manifestly excessive”, but because “the trial judge had made errors of fact supporting the findings of aggravating conduct”.
The court said there was no error of fact in this case.The court said there was no error of fact in this case.
They ruled that the assessment of damages was not excessive:They ruled that the assessment of damages was not excessive:
The Daily Telegraph also appealed against the original judge’s decision to exclude the evidence of actor Yael Stone – who alleged Rush had harassed her during a different play.The Daily Telegraph also appealed against the original judge’s decision to exclude the evidence of actor Yael Stone – who alleged Rush had harassed her during a different play.
In the original trial, Justice Wigney had rejected the Telegraph’s application to add Stone’s evidence. He ruled that though the evidence was important to the Telegraph’s case, the lateness of the application to add her and the “delay to the completion of the trial” would unfairly disadvantage Rush.In the original trial, Justice Wigney had rejected the Telegraph’s application to add Stone’s evidence. He ruled that though the evidence was important to the Telegraph’s case, the lateness of the application to add her and the “delay to the completion of the trial” would unfairly disadvantage Rush.
Stone was given the pseudonym “Witness X”, her evidence was not allowed, and her identity was suppressed.Stone was given the pseudonym “Witness X”, her evidence was not allowed, and her identity was suppressed.
The Telegraph argued that Wigney had erred in this decision. They said Stone had agreed to give evidence by video link, which would have shortened any potential delay.The Telegraph argued that Wigney had erred in this decision. They said Stone had agreed to give evidence by video link, which would have shortened any potential delay.
But the appeal judges have upheld his decision to exclude Stone.But the appeal judges have upheld his decision to exclude Stone.
They said the issue wasn’t Stone’s availability to give evidence, it was the judge’s own availability.They said the issue wasn’t Stone’s availability to give evidence, it was the judge’s own availability.
Rush has denied harassing Stone, saying in 2018 that the allegations were “incorrect and in some instances have been taken completely out of context”.Rush has denied harassing Stone, saying in 2018 that the allegations were “incorrect and in some instances have been taken completely out of context”.
“However, clearly Yael has been upset on occasion by the spirited enthusiasm I generally bring to my work,” he said. “I sincerely and deeply regret if I have caused her any distress. This, most certainly, has never been my intention.”“However, clearly Yael has been upset on occasion by the spirited enthusiasm I generally bring to my work,” he said. “I sincerely and deeply regret if I have caused her any distress. This, most certainly, has never been my intention.”
The appeal judges also upheld the trial judge’s ruling that Norvill’s social interactions with Rush contradicted some of her testimony.The appeal judges also upheld the trial judge’s ruling that Norvill’s social interactions with Rush contradicted some of her testimony.
The original judgment listed three things: one was that Norvill went to a play with Rush and had dinner with him, one was that Norvill invited Rush to a Christmas party at her parents’ home, and one was that she sent an “affectionate” email to him two days before the last performance of King Lear.The original judgment listed three things: one was that Norvill went to a play with Rush and had dinner with him, one was that Norvill invited Rush to a Christmas party at her parents’ home, and one was that she sent an “affectionate” email to him two days before the last performance of King Lear.
In court, Norvill said she was “not proud” of the email, but sent it because she was “in survival mode”. “I wanted to get to the end of the show,” she said. “I had two shows to go. I was very frightened. I didn’t want to risk the performance. I guess I chose to put Geoffrey’s comfortability above my own.”In court, Norvill said she was “not proud” of the email, but sent it because she was “in survival mode”. “I wanted to get to the end of the show,” she said. “I had two shows to go. I was very frightened. I didn’t want to risk the performance. I guess I chose to put Geoffrey’s comfortability above my own.”
The appeal judges have today agreed with the trial judge that these interactions cast doubt on her reliability.The appeal judges have today agreed with the trial judge that these interactions cast doubt on her reliability.
“Like the judge, we have difficulty understanding why Ms Norvill responded to Mr Rush’s email of 7 January 2016 using the term of endearment which she did if he had been behaving towards her in the manner she described,” they wrote.“Like the judge, we have difficulty understanding why Ms Norvill responded to Mr Rush’s email of 7 January 2016 using the term of endearment which she did if he had been behaving towards her in the manner she described,” they wrote.
“We accept that there was a power imbalance in the relationship between Mr Rush and Ms Norvill. It is also appropriate to take into account the difficulties commonly experienced by those who have suffered sexual harassment in reporting the conduct.“We accept that there was a power imbalance in the relationship between Mr Rush and Ms Norvill. It is also appropriate to take into account the difficulties commonly experienced by those who have suffered sexual harassment in reporting the conduct.
“However, even having regard to those matters, it is difficult to understand that they may explain the very affectionate (if not effusive) terms of Ms Norvill’s response to the email.”“However, even having regard to those matters, it is difficult to understand that they may explain the very affectionate (if not effusive) terms of Ms Norvill’s response to the email.”
So what was that other evidence?So what was that other evidence?
The appeal court has agreed with the original judge that the testimony of other veteran actors on set, and director Neil Armfield, contradicted Eryn Jean Norvill.The appeal court has agreed with the original judge that the testimony of other veteran actors on set, and director Neil Armfield, contradicted Eryn Jean Norvill.
The appeal judges said there was evidence that “there was a positive relationship” between Norvill and Rush. Most of that, as written in this judgment, is via the testimony of Armfield, and actors Robyn Nevin and Helen Buday.The appeal judges said there was evidence that “there was a positive relationship” between Norvill and Rush. Most of that, as written in this judgment, is via the testimony of Armfield, and actors Robyn Nevin and Helen Buday.
The judges acknowledged that Norvill argued she was pressured to maintain “good relationships”. But:The judges acknowledged that Norvill argued she was pressured to maintain “good relationships”. But:
Though the appeal was dismissed, the appeal court has agreed with one part of the Daily Telegraph’s submissions, which is that the trial judge put too much weight on promotional press interviews where Eryn Jean Norvill praised Rush.Though the appeal was dismissed, the appeal court has agreed with one part of the Daily Telegraph’s submissions, which is that the trial judge put too much weight on promotional press interviews where Eryn Jean Norvill praised Rush.
The trial judge, Michael Wigney, had said that Norvill had undermined her reliability as a witness by giving a positive press interview about Rush to the Telegraph in 2015, as she promoted King Lear.The trial judge, Michael Wigney, had said that Norvill had undermined her reliability as a witness by giving a positive press interview about Rush to the Telegraph in 2015, as she promoted King Lear.
Norvill had said Rush was “just forever playful” and “very cheeky”. Wigney wrote that these “contemporaneous statements to the media about her positive experience working with Mr Rush ... count against the reliability and credibility of Ms Norvill’s evidence concerning the rehearsals.”Norvill had said Rush was “just forever playful” and “very cheeky”. Wigney wrote that these “contemporaneous statements to the media about her positive experience working with Mr Rush ... count against the reliability and credibility of Ms Norvill’s evidence concerning the rehearsals.”
Norvill testified that she had been pressured into making these positive comments so as not to ruin the promotions for the show.Norvill testified that she had been pressured into making these positive comments so as not to ruin the promotions for the show.
The appeal court has today agreed with the argument that Wigney put too much significance on these comments.The appeal court has today agreed with the argument that Wigney put too much significance on these comments.
The judges said that Norvill’s press comments were in fact “consistent” with her other testimony, that she felt uncomfortable, but had to suppress this for the “corporate” interest in promoting the play.The judges said that Norvill’s press comments were in fact “consistent” with her other testimony, that she felt uncomfortable, but had to suppress this for the “corporate” interest in promoting the play.
But, they concluded that there was “a good deal of other evidence”, apart from the press interviews, which “indicated that there was a positive relationship between Ms Norvill and Mr Rush”.But, they concluded that there was “a good deal of other evidence”, apart from the press interviews, which “indicated that there was a positive relationship between Ms Norvill and Mr Rush”.
This ultimately meant they dismissed the appeal.This ultimately meant they dismissed the appeal.
And here is the judgment summary for you to read.And here is the judgment summary for you to read.
We’re still combing through the 177-page full judgment and will bring you the most pertinent parts.We’re still combing through the 177-page full judgment and will bring you the most pertinent parts.
The total bill of damages to Rush thus stands at:The total bill of damages to Rush thus stands at:
Non-economic loss including aggravated damages – $850,000;Non-economic loss including aggravated damages – $850,000;
Past economic loss including pre-judgment interest – $1,060,773Past economic loss including pre-judgment interest – $1,060,773
Future economic loss – $919,678Future economic loss – $919,678
Pre-judgment interest on the non-economic loss – $42,302.10.Pre-judgment interest on the non-economic loss – $42,302.10.
The appeal court rejected all of the Telegraph’s arguments that the primary judge had overestimated how much work Rush would have lost as a result of the articles and the emotional impact of the defamatory claims.The appeal court rejected all of the Telegraph’s arguments that the primary judge had overestimated how much work Rush would have lost as a result of the articles and the emotional impact of the defamatory claims.
From the judgment summary, Justices Jacqueline Gleeson, Richard White, Michael Wheelahan said all of the Daily Telegraph’s grounds of appeal were rejected.From the judgment summary, Justices Jacqueline Gleeson, Richard White, Michael Wheelahan said all of the Daily Telegraph’s grounds of appeal were rejected.
They said they “agreed with the trial judge” that the Daily Telegraph’s publications conveyed the imputation that Rush was a “pervert”.They said they “agreed with the trial judge” that the Daily Telegraph’s publications conveyed the imputation that Rush was a “pervert”.
They rejected the newspaper’s claim that the original judge had erred in striking out their defence of truth.They rejected the newspaper’s claim that the original judge had erred in striking out their defence of truth.
“Nationwide News’ only substantive defence at the trial was the claim that all but one of the imputations alleged by Mr Rush were substantially true ... The full court concluded that the [trial] judge’s assessment of Ms Norvill was based on findings that are not glaringly improbable.”“Nationwide News’ only substantive defence at the trial was the claim that all but one of the imputations alleged by Mr Rush were substantially true ... The full court concluded that the [trial] judge’s assessment of Ms Norvill was based on findings that are not glaringly improbable.”
And, they ruled that the damages awarded were “appropriately high but not manifestly excessive having regard to the extremely serious nature of the imputations that were conveyed by the publications, the extent of publication, the hurt and distress caused to Mr Rush by the publications, the conduct of Nationwide News that aggravated the harm caused to Mr Rush and the harm caused to Mr Rush’s reputation”.And, they ruled that the damages awarded were “appropriately high but not manifestly excessive having regard to the extremely serious nature of the imputations that were conveyed by the publications, the extent of publication, the hurt and distress caused to Mr Rush by the publications, the conduct of Nationwide News that aggravated the harm caused to Mr Rush and the harm caused to Mr Rush’s reputation”.
Nationwide News has lost its appeal against the Geoffrey Rush defamation verdict.Nationwide News has lost its appeal against the Geoffrey Rush defamation verdict.
The judges also rejected all of the newspaper’s grounds of appeal.The judges also rejected all of the newspaper’s grounds of appeal.
This means the Daily Telegraph has lost its appeal for a retrial, and their appeal for costs to be reduced.This means the Daily Telegraph has lost its appeal for a retrial, and their appeal for costs to be reduced.
Rush will be awarded the full $2.9m in damages – the largest defamation payout to a single person in Australian history.Rush will be awarded the full $2.9m in damages – the largest defamation payout to a single person in Australian history.
More detail to come.More detail to come.
The judgment today could go a few ways.The judgment today could go a few ways.
The Daily Telegraph is appealing against the original verdict, as well as the costs awarded against them.The Daily Telegraph is appealing against the original verdict, as well as the costs awarded against them.
Their grounds of appeal include (but not limited to):Their grounds of appeal include (but not limited to):
The primary judge erred in finding that the article carried the imputation that Rush “was a pervert”.The primary judge erred in finding that the article carried the imputation that Rush “was a pervert”.
The judge erred in denying their defence that the imputations were “substantially true”.The judge erred in denying their defence that the imputations were “substantially true”.
The judge erred in finding that Norvill gave unreliable evidence.The judge erred in finding that Norvill gave unreliable evidence.
The amount of general damages is excessive.The amount of general damages is excessive.
The judge erred in awarding such a large sum of damages based on Rush’s argument that he lost work as a result of the emotional impact of the article. They are arguing that Rush gave no proof of this.The judge erred in awarding such a large sum of damages based on Rush’s argument that he lost work as a result of the emotional impact of the article. They are arguing that Rush gave no proof of this.
If the court agrees with the argument that the trial judge erred regarding the imputations, the truth defence, or that he erred in finding Norvill gave unreliable evidence, it could order a retrial.If the court agrees with the argument that the trial judge erred regarding the imputations, the truth defence, or that he erred in finding Norvill gave unreliable evidence, it could order a retrial.
If the court agrees only with the grounds of appeals around damages, it could reduce the money paid to Rush – while still upholding the original verdict.If the court agrees only with the grounds of appeals around damages, it could reduce the money paid to Rush – while still upholding the original verdict.
Earlier, the Daily Telegraph had intended to run an appeal on the grounds that the trial judge, Justice Wigney, had displayed bias. But it later withdrew that completely.Earlier, the Daily Telegraph had intended to run an appeal on the grounds that the trial judge, Justice Wigney, had displayed bias. But it later withdrew that completely.
The ruling is due at 9.30am.The ruling is due at 9.30am.
To refresh our memories, the appeal today centres around an article published in November 2017, headlined “King Leer”, that said Rush had “engaged in inappropriate behaviour” during a Sydney Theatre Company production of King Lear in 2015 and 2016.To refresh our memories, the appeal today centres around an article published in November 2017, headlined “King Leer”, that said Rush had “engaged in inappropriate behaviour” during a Sydney Theatre Company production of King Lear in 2015 and 2016.
Rush denied the claims and sued the Daily Telegraph and its parent company Nationwide News.Rush denied the claims and sued the Daily Telegraph and its parent company Nationwide News.
In April 2019, Justice Michael Wigney ruled that the newspaper had defamed Rush. He said the articles conveyed the imputations that Rush was “a pervert”, “a sexual predator” and “committed sexual assault in a theatre” during the production.In April 2019, Justice Michael Wigney ruled that the newspaper had defamed Rush. He said the articles conveyed the imputations that Rush was “a pervert”, “a sexual predator” and “committed sexual assault in a theatre” during the production.
The Telegraph argued that these imputations were not actually conveyed by the text and images of the article. Failing that, they also argued the defence of truth. Both arguments were rejected.The Telegraph argued that these imputations were not actually conveyed by the text and images of the article. Failing that, they also argued the defence of truth. Both arguments were rejected.
During the trial, the court heard testimony from a rollcall of Australian theatre and film personalities – including actors Judy Davis, Robyn Nevin and director Neil Armfield – who all testified in favour of Rush.During the trial, the court heard testimony from a rollcall of Australian theatre and film personalities – including actors Judy Davis, Robyn Nevin and director Neil Armfield – who all testified in favour of Rush.
The actor who alleged she was harassed and groped by Rush, Eryn Jean Norvill, had not consented to the Telegraph’s initial story. But she later agreed to testify in court.The actor who alleged she was harassed and groped by Rush, Eryn Jean Norvill, had not consented to the Telegraph’s initial story. But she later agreed to testify in court.
Her testimony was backed up by fellow actor Mark Leonard Winter.Her testimony was backed up by fellow actor Mark Leonard Winter.
Actor Yael Stone also agreed to testify, alleging she was harassed by Rush during a different play, but her testimony was not allowed to be admitted, and she was given the pseudonym Witness X.Actor Yael Stone also agreed to testify, alleging she was harassed by Rush during a different play, but her testimony was not allowed to be admitted, and she was given the pseudonym Witness X.
In ruling in favour of Rush, Wigney said that Norvill was “prone to exaggeration and embellishment”. He said the Telegraph’s reports were “in all the circumstances, a recklessly irresponsible piece of sensationalist journalism of the worst kind”.In ruling in favour of Rush, Wigney said that Norvill was “prone to exaggeration and embellishment”. He said the Telegraph’s reports were “in all the circumstances, a recklessly irresponsible piece of sensationalist journalism of the worst kind”.
Good morning and welcome to our live coverage of the appeal in the Geoffrey Rush defamation case.Good morning and welcome to our live coverage of the appeal in the Geoffrey Rush defamation case.
This morning we will find out if the Daily Telegraph is successful in appealing against Rush’s 2019 court win, which awarded him $2.9m in damages – the largest defamation payout to a single person in Australian history.This morning we will find out if the Daily Telegraph is successful in appealing against Rush’s 2019 court win, which awarded him $2.9m in damages – the largest defamation payout to a single person in Australian history.
The Telegraph is appealing both the size of the payout and the decision itself, meaning that the case could go to a retrial.The Telegraph is appealing both the size of the payout and the decision itself, meaning that the case could go to a retrial.
The judgment from the federal court will be handed down today at 9.30am.The judgment from the federal court will be handed down today at 9.30am.
Now, due to Covid-19, the court has told us that there will be “no access to the courtroom”. That includes media and even the parties themselves. The court has also said there will be no livestream.Now, due to Covid-19, the court has told us that there will be “no access to the courtroom”. That includes media and even the parties themselves. The court has also said there will be no livestream.
The court’s public information officer has assured us the judgment will be published online shortly after 9.30am and sent to media. Previously, the site has temporarily crashed when popular judgments have been posted, so we’ll see.The court’s public information officer has assured us the judgment will be published online shortly after 9.30am and sent to media. Previously, the site has temporarily crashed when popular judgments have been posted, so we’ll see.
As we wait, we’ll be explaining the legal issues and looking at rulings the court could make today.As we wait, we’ll be explaining the legal issues and looking at rulings the court could make today.
Stay with us.Stay with us.