Royal prankster ‘gagged' after nurse tragedy, court told
Michael Christian launched Federal Court proceedings last week against Southern Cross Austereo, including for alleged contraventions of the Fair Work Act and whistleblower protections, after his role was made redundant in February. He had been employed by the network for more than 20 years.
Christian alleges he was directed by Austereo to participate in the disastrous hoax with his co-host, Mel Greig, on December 4, 2012, which marked his second day in his then new role as a presenter of the Hot 30 Countdown on Sydney's 2Day FM.
During the stunt, the presenters impersonated the then Prince Charles and Queen Elizabeth in a call to a London hospital where the then Duchess of Cambridge, now the Princess of Wales, had been admitted for severe morning sickness.
The call, aired hours later, unexpectedly resulted in the pair eliciting private medical information about the Duchess. The deception triggered international outrage after Jacintha Saldanha, one of the nurses who was tricked, died by suicide.
The presenters' concerns about the prank and broadcasting the call were dismissed, Christian's lawyers say.
They allege the network 'did not immediately take public accountability' after Saldanha's death but left the co-hosts 'exposed to relentless public vitriol, harassment and abuse, including death threats' as 'convenient fall guys and scapegoats'.
Christian's role was terminated on February 28 this year on the grounds of a purported redundancy, his lawyers say in the court documents released on Wednesday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
8 hours ago
- West Australian
Latham hears of tweet fallout via video link
Mark Latham had to beam into a courtroom via videolink because of a knee injury as a tribunal was told fellow MP Alex Greenwich's office received a 'barrage' of hateful and threatening messages in the wake of a graphic tweet by the ex-Labor leader. The former Labor leader has faced days of controversy following allegations he abused his former partner, Nathalie Matthews, and sent her sexual messages from the parliament chamber. The member of the NSW upper house has strenuously denied Ms Matthews' allegations, which are untested and contained in an application for an apprehended violence order (AVO) filed in the local court. He not been charged with any criminal offence. Mr Latham's injury was revealed in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal on Tuesday. Greenwich, an independent Sydney MP, has brought NCAT proceedings against the maverick MP, alleging he was subjected to homosexual vilification and workplace sexual harassment over a graphic tweet by Mr Latham. Mr Latham, through his solicitor Zali Burrows, is contesting the case. Mr Latham did not appear before the tribunal in Sydney on Tuesday, with Ms Burrows telling the court that he had a fractured knee and could not travel. Instead he beamed into the courtroom via video link. The NCAT case is centred on a tweet by Latham, as well as comments made by the former One Nation MP in newspaper and radio interviews. The same tweet was the subject of Federal Court defamation proceedings in which Latham was ordered to pay $140,000 to Greenwich. Federal Court Justice David O'Callaghan ruled in favour of Greenwich during the defamation proceedings, finding that the tweet conveyed the meaning that Greenwich 'engaged in disgusting sexual activities' and that it was defamatory. He also rejected Latham's defence of honest opinion and qualified common law privilege. Greenwich has now launched NCAT proceedings against Latham and his counsel has argued that each of the statements amounted to unlawful homosexual vilification and sexual harassment and that Latham breached the Anti-Discrimination Act. Alexander Graham, who works in Mr Greenwich's office as an electorate officer, told the tribunal the office was inundated with messages in the wake of the Latham tweet. Under cross examination from Ms Burrows, he was asked if Greenwich's office received negative communications at other times, including during the anti-abortion bill debate. Mr Graham said while Greenwich's office did receive letters and emails from people disagreeing with the amendments there wasn't anything 'directly disparaging of Alex'. He told the court the only time he could recall police being called was as a result of the fallout from the Latham tweet. The tribunal heard that some of the abusive calls came from private numbers. 'The abusive phone calls from private numbers, you cannot ascertain they were from genuine haters,' Ms Burrows asked. Greenwich's barrister Prue Bindon objected to the question. Mr Graham later told the tribunal the office received a 'barrage' of hateful letters, emails and phone calls. He said some were written with letters which had been cut from magazines and newspapers. 'There were ones that directly threatened Alex … talking about throwing homosexuals off the bluff,' Mr Graham said. He described some of the communications as 'bizarre' and 'threatening' and that Greenwich's staff began using gloves to open mail. Ms Bindon previously told the tribunal the elements of homophobic vilification alleged in the case hinge on the public act, claiming Latham's comments had incited hatred, contempt or severe ridicule. She said the sexual harassment allegations were in relation to unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature in circumstances where a reasonable person would've anticipated it to cause humiliation or intimidation. Ms Bindon also previously said she anticipated the defence would claim Greenwich's reputation was to some extent not damaged. The matter will return to court next month. The hearing followed Labor deciding to keep his portrait in the Labor's Parliament House party room with a note saying he was 'banned for life' from the party in 2017.
ABC News
9 hours ago
- ABC News
Walter Sofronoff knew material shared during Bruce Lehrmann prosecution inquiry was confidential, Federal Court hears
Lawyers for the ACT Integrity Commission have rebuffed claims that some of its findings about Walter Sofronoff's conduct during the inquiry into Bruce Lehrmann's prosecution were legally unreasonable. The Federal Court has concluded a hearing into Mr Sofronoff's bid for a judicial review of the commission's report into his contact with journalists during the inquiry in 2023. The retired judge was found to have engaged in serious corrupt conduct, including by giving confidential material to Janet Albrechtsen of The Australian, and a copy of his final report to her and the ABC's Elizabeth Byrne before it was officially released. In his application to the court, Mr Sofronoff alleged that a range of findings that acted dishonestly or in bad faith were legally unreasonable, with no evidence to support them. But counsel for the commission, Scott Robertson, has argued there is ample evidence to support those conclusions. He pointed to Mr Sofronoff's communications with Ms Albrechtsen, including a text message in which he provided a witness statement with the note "strictly confidential". "Mr Sofronoff knew that this was material that should be kept confidential … consistent with his own suppression order," Mr Robertson told the court. "Those inferences haven't been demonstrated to be so far beyond the pale, so far off the rails, as to amount to legal unreasonableness." Walter Sofronoff has argued the legislation allowed him to do whatever he felt necessary for the fair and prompt conduct of the inquiry, and that he was acting in the public interest. Mr Robertson said this did not mitigate the finding of corrupt conduct. "It's not enough just to think … your purposes were higher purposes than those of your statutory function," he said. In his submissions in reply, Mr Sofronoff's barrister, Adam Pomerenke, argued non-publication orders did not prevent the inquiry chair from disclosing information, and the text message to Ms Albrechtsen did not indicate otherwise. "It's saying to Ms Albrechtsen: this is strictly confidential, binding on you, do not publish it," Mr Pomerenke told the court. Justice Wendy Abraham questioned Mr Pomerenke on whether disclosing the material was a breach of witnesses' expectations. "They would understand that it wouldn't be distributed, because it was confidential," Justice Abraham suggested. Mr Pomerenke replied that it was not a "legitimate expectation". He told the court the commission had demonstrated "the unwisdom of what was done". "But in our respectful submission, [it] has not demonstrated dishonesty," Mr Pomerenke said. The ACT government called the inquiry after the collapse of Bruce Lehrmann's 2022 criminal trial for the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins, which left no verdict. He later sued Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson for defamation over the interview in which Ms Higgins made her allegations. Justice Michael Lee found, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Lehrmann did rape his then-colleague at Parliament House in 2019. An appeal against that decision is due to be heard next month. Justice Abraham told the court she would not rule on Mr Sofronoff's application today. "Not surprisingly, I'm going to reserve my decision; I have plenty to think about," she said.
9 News
a day ago
- 9 News
Lehrmann inquiry head's leak was 'transparent, not corrupt', lawyer said
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here A former judge's decision to leak confidential material from an inquiry into Bruce Lehrmann's criminal prosecution was an attempt at transparency not an act of corruption, his lawyers say. Walter Sofronoff KC has asked the Federal Court to toss a March finding by the ACT Integrity Commission that the former judge engaged in serious corrupt conduct. The commission's probe stemmed from Sofronoff's leaks to a journalist. Walter Sofronoff KC has asked a court to toss out a finding that he engaged in serious corrupt conduct. (Fairfax Media) But the watchdog's adverse finding was a "serious offence against the administration of justice", Sofronoff's barrister Adam Pomerenke KC said during a hearing today. Sofronoff was not corrupt, malicious or dishonest, the barrister told Justice Wendy Abrahams. Rather, he genuinely believed he was acting in the public interest by sending documents like witness statements to the media. "Even if Mr Sofronoff was wrong in his view, the fact remains that he genuinely and honestly held it," Pomerenke said. "At worst it could be characterised as an erroneous attempt to ensure accuracy and transparency in the public discourse." Sofronoff chaired a board of inquiry into the ACT's criminal justice system after Lehrmann's controversy-plagued prosecution. The former Liberal staffer was accused of raping then-colleague Brittany Higgins in a ministerial office at Parliament House in 2019. A 2022 criminal trial was abandoned without a verdict due to juror misconduct. Lehrmann lost a defamation lawsuit he brought over media reporting of Higgins' allegations but has appealed a judge's finding the rape claim was true on the balance of probabilities. The Sofronoff-led inquiry found the ACT's top prosecutor, Shane Drumgold, had lost objectivity over the Lehrmann case and knowingly lied about a note of his meeting with broadcaster Lisa Wilkinson. Drumgold resigned and launched a legal challenge to the findings in the ACT Supreme Court. Former ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold. (Rhett Wyman / SMH) It found the majority of the inquiry's findings were not legally unreasonable, but it struck down an adverse finding about how Drumgold cross-examined then-Liberal senator Linda Reynolds during Lehrmann's criminal trial. In March, the ACT Integrity Commission also found the majority of the inquiry's findings were not legally unreasonable. But it found Sofronoff's behaviour during the inquiry gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and he might have been influenced by the publicly expressed views of journalist Janet Albrechtsen. Sofronoff repeatedly messaged the News Corp columnist and eventually provided her an advance copy of his probe's final report. Pomerenke told the Federal Court today the ACT corruption body had admitted it made an error in finding Sofronoff might have engaged in contempt. The claimed contempt stemmed out of leaks to the media despite directions made to parties during the inquiry to suppress certain documents. But the notion that the head of an inquiry could be in contempt of himself was "absurd and irrational", Pomerenke said. This concession was enough to toss the findings against his client, he told the court. Any individual error could not be "disentangled" from the final finding that the former judge engaged in serious corrupt conduct, the barrister said. Support is available from 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) and the National Sexual Abuse and Redress Support Service on 1800 211 028. courts Bruce Lehrmann Australia national Australian Capital Territory CONTACT US
