Lachlan Murdoch launches defamation proceedings against Crikey

“We await your writ so that we can test this important issue of freedom of public interest journalism in a courtroom.”

In a statement of claim, Murdoch’s lawyers note the article was free to read rather than being limited to subscribers, and allege Crikey was “seeking to humiliate and harm” Murdoch by placing the advertisement in The New York Times.

The article, headlined “Trump is a confirmed unhinged traitor. And Murdoch is his unindicted co-conspirator”, was written by Crikey’s political editor Bernard Keane and was tagged as analysis.

“If Trump ends up in the dock for a variety of crimes committed as president, as he should be, not all his co-conspirators will be there with him,” Keane writes in the article.

“Nixon was famously the ‘unindicted co-conspirator’ in Watergate. The Murdochs and their slew of poisonous Fox News commentators are the unindicted co-conspirators of this continuing crisis.”

Loading

The article was removed from Crikey’s website, along with an associated Facebook post and tweet, when Murdoch’s solicitor, John Churchill, wrote to the news outlet in June. It was re-published last week, triggering moves to file proceedings.

In a letter to Murdoch’s lawyers on July 7, Crikey’s lawyer, Minter Ellison partner Peter Bartlett, said all three publications had been removed about 20 minutes after the letter was received, “as a goodwill gesture”.

Bartlett said this was done notwithstanding that “we do not consider [any claim by Murdoch] … would have any meaningful prospects of succeeding against our clients”. Michael Bradley from Marque Lawyers has acted on behalf of Crikey in recent months.

The lawsuit was filed against Private Media, publisher of Crikey, Keane and Fray. Murdoch’s lawyers allege in court documents that the article was republished by Crikey on August 15 on the “pretext” that it was a response to “recent media reports”, and accuse Crikey of contacting The Sydney Morning Herald before the latter published an August 14 article about legal letters between the parties.

Loading

In a separate article on the Crikey website, published on Monday, Beecher said Keane’s article “was commentary about Donald Trump’s involvement in the January 6 [2021] insurrection attempt at the US Capitol” and only “briefly refers to the role of Fox News in these events, and doesn’t mention Lachlan Murdoch by name”.

Beecher said the headline “clearly refers to Rupert Murdoch, the only ‘Murdoch’ used as shorthand by the media and the rest of the world”. The Murdoch family was mentioned briefly in the final paragraph, he said.

The Murdoch family is facing two major lawsuits in the US from voting machine companies that are seeking billions of dollars in damages over claims Fox News damaged their businesses by spreading disinformation about the 2020 election result.

Fox is defending its reporting on the basis it was commenting on matters of public concern and free speech is protected by the First Amendment in the US Constitution.

Supporters of former US president Donald Trump descended on Washington on January 6, 2021, in a bid to stop Joe Biden’s election win from being certified.

Allegations of involvement in the January 6 riot are a sore point for the Murdoch family.

While high-profile commentators on Fox News have been blamed for encouraging Trump supporters, media outlets in the US including The New York Times have published articles about Lachlan Murdoch’s snubs of former president Donald Trump and reports published in recent months say he is scathing of the January attack, where at least seven people died.

In July, The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal, both owned by the Murdoch family, published editorials criticising Trump’s actions concerning the riot.

Damages for non-economic loss in defamation cases in Australia are capped at present at $443,000, a figure that is increased annually.

If Murdoch was successful after any trial, the court is empowered to award aggravated damages on top of that figure if it found Crikey engaged in “improper or unjustifiable conduct”, including during the trial, which increased the hurt to Murdoch.

Recent changes to the defamation law in most states and territories have ensured the cap on damages for non-economic loss remains in place in all cases, even if aggravated damages are awarded. Under the old law, the cap ceased to apply at all if aggravated damages were in play.

The court can also award separate damages for proven economic loss.

Private Media, the publisher of Crikey, was approached for comment.

With Zoe Samios

The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.