Page:Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment).pdf/292

No. I see. You appreciated that once the court in the Australian Capital Territory who granted the stay that Ms Wilkinson became the subject of intense public and media criticism?---Yes.

Criticism that was harmful of her professional reputation and future?---Yes.

You appreciate at the time that on – that is, on 22 June and following that the advice that you gave that the speech was okay had exposed Ms Wilkinson to that public criticism, correct?---I don't accept that.

And you gave the following evidence at transcript 2569, line 5:

It would be a matter of very substantial and obvious personal embarrassment for you, correct? That is, for the information that Ms Wilkinson had acted on her advice – had become public.

And your answer was:

I do not accept that. I am not professionally or personally embarrassed by the advice that I provided to Ms Wilkinson.

Is that right?---Yes.

Now, I just want, as I say, to clarify your state of mind. That was your view – that is, that the advice that you gave – so I understood your answers – you were satisfied that at the time Ms Wilkinson gave the legal advice, your advice was correct?---Yes.

And – now, by 22 June, three days later, Ms McGarvey was writing to the Associate to the Chief Justice of the Australian Capital Territory. You recall that?---Yes.

And you were involved in the preparation of that letter?---Yes.

And were satisfied that it was true and correct, given it was being sent to the Associate to the Chief Justice?---Yes.

In that letter, it was said that there was no objective intention to interfere with the administration of justice. You recall that?---Yes.

But it expressed profound regret and also an apology. Do you recall that?---Yes.

And by [representing] to the Chief Justice that you had profound regret and apology – that is, Network Ten – I presume you were seeking to convey a recognition that there was something that Channel Ten had done that was worthy of regret or a profound apology. Would that be fair?---I think the regret and profound apology, in my view, was in relation to the fact that the trial had been vacated and that, in my view, your Honour, it was that that we were addressing in the letter, not, in my view, anything in relation to the advice that had been given, because her Honour also wrapped up consideration of the advice with the warning that had been given or not given. And so in my view, that’s what we were trying to address.

So your view at the time that the Chief Justice was contacted was that advice to that speech was completely appropriate advice?---Yes.

All right. And so you – would it be fair to say that you still hold that view?---I do.

And [I] take it then, that you disagree that the combination of the speech and the posts amount to Ms Wilkinson endorsing the credibility of the complainant, who in terms celebrated Ms Wilkinson's endorsement of the complainant's credibility?---No, your Honour. I accept that the speech did that. However, in

---