as just one of a number of examples, Mr Sharaz saying to him on 27 January 2021 that (Ex 36 (at 1:14:09–1:14:17)):
… the reason we've chosen the timeline we've had is because it's a sitting week when we want the story to come out. A break and then–
… the Senate goes in March, and that's when I'm going to talk to - I've got a friend in Labor, Katy Gallagher on the Labor side, who will probe and continue it going. So sitting week, story comes out. They have to answer questions at Question Time. It's a mess for them. March, Senate estimates. Hopefully we can try and get the footage, that sort of stuff, for Britt's clarity and then he's going to call an election whenever he calls it.
- (2) relatedly, his initial refusal to accept that he knew that Mr Sharaz intended to assist the then Opposition to pursue the issues being discussed in Parliament (T1629–30); and
- (3) his refusal to accept the reality that the Project programme conveyed the impression that Ms Higgins would not be supported if she went to police (T1574.1–46).
327 Mr Llewellyn did provide generally credible testimony in cross-examination as to aspects of what he did. Whether those steps were all he should have reasonably done is discussed below.
F.10Mr Meakin
328 Mr Peter Meakin is an editorial consultant with over 60 years' experience as a journalist with a high reputation built by being in a number of senior roles in commercial television.
329 I will deal with some of his evidence below when dealing with the s 30 defence. If suffices to note for present purposes that he was an impressive witness who gave thoughtful, responsive answers and, refreshingly, was willing to make concessions adverse to the case of Network Ten when he thought it was appropriate.
F.11Dr Robertson
330 During the course of final submissions, I described Dr Robertson, a toxicologist called by Network Ten, as a "very impressive expert [witness]" (T2328). I adhere to that view. It is unnecessary to say more than he was a disinterested and cautious witness who understood the role of an expert is to assist the Court. In the end, however, his evidence is only relevant to the extent I can accept as reliable the assumptions upon which he based his opinions.
