![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Rush v Nationwide News, a defamation case between Geoffrey Rush and the publishers of the Daily Telegraph, has been credited with exerting a ‘chilling effect’ on the #MeToo moment in Australia. The case presents an opportunity to explore both the influence of the #MeToo moment on testimony and how such testimony is received, interpreted and evaluated through legal institutions and the processes of justice. Through a close textual reading of court transcripts, media reporting and the judgment of Justice Michael Wigney, this article traces connections between the #MeToo moment, the testimony of the alleged victim-survivor, Eryn Jean Norvill and its circulation and reception within and beyond the courtroom. Taking a law and performance theoretical framework, I argue that both chief protagonists engaged in a performative approach to narrative self-construction in the adversarial courtroom – Rush as a theatrical genius, and Norvill as a #MeToo advocate – that profoundly influenced Justice Wigney's assessment of their credibility as witnesses, providing a platform for the judicial destruction of Norvill's credibility and denying her the truth of her own experience as a victim-witness of workplace sexual harassment. Indeed, the highly performative nature of this case and its connection to the assessment of witness credibility exposes the influence of a range of sexual harassment myths within Justice Wigney's judgment. In this way, Rush v Nationwide News starkly exposes the ongoing epistemic priority of masculine normativity within adversarial justice, veiled within the cloak of neutrality, objectivity and reason that frames the assessment of witness credibility.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 7) [2019] FCA 496 (hereafter Rush v Nationwide News).
2 ibid [219].
3 Nationwide News Pty Limited v Rush (2020) 380 ALR 432 (hereafter Nationwide News v Rush).
4 ‘Defence to Statement of Claim’, File NSD2179/2017, 1 February 2018. In view of the public interest in the case, the Federal Court of Australia established a website for the publication of documents related to the trial: <https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/rush-v-nationwide>, accessed 8 March 2024.
5 On the effects of this practice on victim-survivors of sexual harassment, see Sarah Ailwood ‘Collateral Damage: Consent, Subjectivity and Australia's #MeToo Moment’ (2020) 46(2) Australian Feminist Law Journal 285.
6 Transcript of Proceedings, Federal Court of Australia, NSW Registry, Wigney J, No. NSD 2179 of 2017 Geoffrey Roy Rush and Nationwide News Pty Ltd & Anor, 9 August 2018, 5–6.
7 Kate McClymont, ‘“A High-Grade, Twisted Abuser”: Don Burke a Sexual Harasser and Bully, Claims Series of Women’ Sydney Morning Herald 26 November 2017, <https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/a-highgrade-twisted-abuser-don-burke-a-sexual-harasser-and-bully-claims-series-of-women-20171126-gzt6d2.html> accessed 22 August 2023.
8 Michelle Harradine, ‘Defamation Law and Epistemic Harm in the #MeToo Era’ (2022) 48(2) Australian Feminist Law Journal 1, 2. Note the serious harm requirement was introduced in 2020, after Rush v Nationwide News. See also David Rolph Defamation Law (Thomson Reuters 2015) and David Rolph, Reputation, Celebrity and Defamation Law (Ashgate 2008).
9 ibid.
10 Defamation Act 2005 (NSW), s. 25, s.30; ‘Defence to Statement of Claim’, File NSD2179/2017, 1 February 2018.
11 New South Wales Department of Justice Statutory Review – Defamation Act 2005, June 2018, 24–25.
12 Second Further Amended Defence to Statement of Claim, File NSD2179/2017, 9 August 2018.
13 Rush v Nationwide News [344].
14 See Bianca Fileborn and Rachel Loney-Howes (eds), #MeToo and the Politics of Social Change (Palgrave Macmillan 2019); Rachel Loney-Howes, Kaitlynn Mendes, Diana Fernandez Romero, Biance Fileborn and Sonia Núñez Puente, ‘Digital footprints of #MeToo’ (2022) 22(6) Feminist Media Studies 1345–62; Jennifer Robinson and Keina Yoshida, How Many More Women? Exploring how the law silences women (Allen & Unwin 2022).
15 Sean Mulcahy, ‘Methodologies of law as performance’ (2022) 16(2) Law and Humanities 165, 174.
16 Harradine (n8). See also Karen O’Connell, ‘Geoffrey Rush's Victory in His Defamation Case Could Have a Chilling Effect on the #MeToo Movement’ The Conversation 11 April 2019 <https://theconversation.com/geoffrey-rushs-victory-in-his-defamation-case-could-have-a-chilling-effect-on-the-metoo-movement-115127> accessed 8 January 2024.
17 Kate Manne, Down Girl. The Logic of Misogyny (OUP 2018), ch 6.
18 Lane Sainty, ‘Geoffrey Rush's lawyer labels defence “hopeless” in defamation case’, Buzzfeed Australia 8 February 2018, <https://www.buzzfeed.com/lanesainty/daily-tele-defence-to-stay-under-wraps> accessed 8 January 2024.
19 Rush v Nationwide News [4].
20 ibid [321]; Lane Sainty ‘An Actor Sang a Line From “Truly Scumptious” On The Witness Stand In Geoffrey Rush's Defamation Trial’, Buzzfeed 25 October 2018 <https://www.buzzfeed.com/lanesainty/geoffrey-rush-director-neil-armfield-king-lear> accessed 8 January 2024; Michael McGowan, ‘Drama at Geoffrey Rush defamation trial as actor's friend bursts into song’, Guardian Australia 25 October 2018 <https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/oct/25/director-neil-armfield-geoffrey-rush-creepy-king-lear> accessed 8 January 2024.
21 Marett Leiboff, Towards a Theatrical Jurisprudence (Routledge 2020) 6.
22 Jerome Bruner, Making Stories: Law, Literature, Life (Harvard University Press 2002) 85.
23 Julie Stone Peters, ‘Legal Performance Good and Bad’ (2008) 4(2) Law, Culture and the Humanities 179, 200.
24 Rush v Nationwide News [2].
25 ibid [244].
26 Lane Sainty, ‘“I thought, this is the beginning of a box set”: Geoffrey Rush testifies in a defamation trial’, Buzzfeed 22 October 2018, <https://www.buzzfeed.com/lanesainty/geoffrey-rush-defamation-trial-day-one> accessed 8 January 2024.
27 Rush v Nationwide News [253].
28 ibid [257].
29 Lane Sainty, ‘Geoffrey Rush says his “thinking of you” text to a female actor weas a joke’, Buzzfeed Australia 23 October 2018, <https://www.buzzfeed.com/lanesainty/geoffrey-rush-daily-telegraph-defamation-trial-day-two> accessed 8 January 2024.
30 Michaela Whitbourn, ‘Geoffrey Rush denies “intentionally groping” female co-star’, The Sydney Morning Herald 23 October 2018, <https://www.smh.com.au/national/geoffrey-rush-denies-intentionally-groping-female-co-star-20181024-p50bkf.html> accessed 8 January 2024; Michael Pelly ‘Geoffrey Rush: I may have touched her chest, but it wasn't intentional’ Australian Financial Review 24 October 2018, <https://www.afr.com/companies/professional-services/geoffrey-rush-i-may-have-touched-her-breast-but-it-wasnt-intentional-20181024-h171d8#:~:text = He%20said%20Ms%20Norvill%2C%20who,%22like%20an%20embarrassed%20teenager%22.&text = In%20other%20evidence%20on%20Wednesday,not%20%22intentionally%20grope%22%20her> accessed 8 January 2024.
31 Rush v Nationwide News [255].
32 ibid [261].
33 ibid [401].
34 ibid [312].
35 ibid [312].
36 ibid [578], [581], [612], [693].
37 Leigh Gilmore, Tainted Witness: Why We Doubt What Women Say About Their Lives (Columbia University Press 2017) 7.
38 Elissa Blake, ‘My experience was not #MeToo, it was #HerToo’: Eryn Jean Norvill on her life-changing return to the stage’ Guardian Australia 7 May 2022 <https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2022/may/07/my-experience-was-not-metoo-it-was-hertoo-eryn-jean-norvill-on-her-life-changing-return-to-the-stage> accessed 12 January 2024.
39 Gilmore (n 37) 3.
40 Kay Schaffer and Sidonie Smith, Human Rights and Narrated Lives: The Ethics of Recognition (Palgrave Macmillan 2004).
41 Gilmore (n 37) 3.
42 Gillian Whitlock, Soft Weapons: Autobiography in Transit (University of Chicago Press 2007) 205.
43 Transcript of Proceedings, Federal Court of Australia, NSW Registry, Wigney J, No. NSD 2179 of 2017 Geoffrey Roy Rush and Nationwide News Pty Ltd & Anor, 31 October 2018, 59.
44 Transcript of Proceedings (n 6) 6–7.
45 ibid 7.
46 Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd (No 6) [2018] FCA 1851, 6 November 2018.
47 Transcript of Proceedings (n 6) 7.
48 Gilmore (n 37) 19–20.
49 ibid 2.
50 Leiboff (n 21) 25.
51 Transcript of Proceedings, Federal Court of Australia, NSW Registry, Wigney J, No. NSD 2179 of 2017 Geoffrey Roy Rush and Nationwide News Pty Ltd & Anor, 30 October 2018, 516.
52 ibid 522.
53 ibid 518–19.
54 ibid 550–51.
55 Whitlock (n 42) 205.
56 Transcript of Proceedings (n 51) 520.
57 ibid 549.
58 ibid 550.
59 ibid 555.
60 Transcript of Proceedings (n 43) 5.
61 ibid 6.
62 ibid 7.
63 ibid.
64 Gilmore (n 37).
65 ibid 19–20.
66 Lane Sainty, ‘Geoffrey Rush's lawyers want to argue that his accuser was upset over a breakup’ Bizzfeed Australia 12 September 2018 <https://www.buzzfeed.com/lanesainty/geoffrey-rush-defamation-lawyers-breakup-allegation> accessed 8 January 2024.
67 Transcript of Proceedings (n 51) 556.
68 Lane Sainty, ‘Geoffrey Rush's Costar Says A Female Actor Didn't Mention "Unwanted Attention" From Rush’ Buzzfeed Australia 29 October 2018 <https://www.buzzfeed.com/lanesainty/geoffrey-rush-actors-testify-defamation-trial> Accessed 8 January 2024.
69 Transcript of Proceedings (n 43) 8.
70 ibid 27.
71 ibid 45; Lane Sainty, ‘Geoffrey Rush Accuser Eryn Jean Norvill Brings Calm To A Courtroom Drama’ Buzzfeed Australia 3 November 2018 <https://www.buzzfeed.com/lanesainty/eryn-jean-norvill-testimony-geoffrey-rush-defamation> accessed 8 January 2024; Michael McGowan ‘Geoffrey Rush defamation trial: Eryn Jean Norvill accused of lying to harm actor’ Guardian Australia 31 October 2018 <https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/oct/31/geoffrey-rush-trial-eryn-jean-norvill-accused-telling-disgusting-lies> accessed 8 January 2024.
72 Sean Mulcahy, ‘Silence and attunement in legal performance’ (2019) 34(2) Canadian Journal of Law and Society 191, 206.
73 ibid 201.
74 ibid.
75 Gilmore (n 37) 5–6.
76 ibid 3.
77 Sainty (n 68); Jenna Price, ‘What women feel when they read about EJ Norvill and Geoffrey Rush’ The Sydney Morning Herald 2 November 2018 <https://www.smh.com.au/national/what-women-feel-when-they-read-about-ej-norvill-and-geoffrey-rush-20181101-p50dcp.html?> Accessed 8 January 2024; Alison Croggan ‘The Rush trial: a backgrounder’ Witness Performance 8 November 2018 <https://witnessperformance.com/the-rush-trial-a-backgrounder/> accessed 8 January 2024.
78 See for example @alisoncroggan 30 October 2018 <https://twitter.com/alisoncroggon/status/1057105403979296769> accessed 11 January 2024; @msmichellelaw 13 April 2019 <https://twitter.com/ms_michellelaw/status/1116929516859846656> accessed 11 January 2024. See also Robinson and Yoshida (n 14) 166–68.
79 Rush v Nationwide News [329].
80 ibid [330].
81 ibid [330, 419, 463, 509].
82 ibid [419].
83 ibid [415].
84 ibid [308].
85 Rush v Nationwide News [308].
86 ibid [309–10].
87 Justice Tom Bingham, ‘The judge as juror: the judicial determination of factual issues’ The Business of Judging (OUP 2000) 7–13; Justice Peter Young, ‘Fact finding made easy’ (2006) 80 Australian Law Journal 454. See also W. H. Gravett, ‘Spotting the liar in the witness box – how valuable is demeanour evidence really’ (2018) 81(3) Tydskrif vir Hedendaagse Romeins-Hollandse Reg (Journal for Contemporary Roman-Dutch Law) 437.
88 Justice David Ipp, ‘Problems with fact-finding’ (2006) 80 Australian Law Journal 667, 670.
89 The Hon Mr Justice Mostyn, ‘The craft of judging and legal reasoning’ (2015) 12 The Judicial Review 359,
90 The Hon Justice Susan Kiefel AC, ‘On being a judge’ Public Lecture, 15 January 2023, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, <https://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/speeches/current-justices/kiefelj/kiefelj-2013-01-15.pdf> accessed 9 January 2024.
91 Justice Mostyn (n 89) 362; Justice James Barry, ‘The methodology of judging’ (1994) 1 James Cook Law Review 135.
92 Justice Ipp (n 88) 670.
93 Dorota Anna Gozdecka ‘Antigones of contemporary theatre: capturing problems of today's civil disobedience in a theatre play’ (2021) 25 Law Text Culture 204, 214.
94 Rush v Nationwide News [310].
95 See for example Rosemary Hunter, ‘Border protection in law's empire – feminist explorations of access to justice’ (2002) 11(2) Griffith Law Review 263–85; Rosemary Hunter, ‘Contesting the dominant paradigm: feminist critiques of liberal legalism’ in Vanessa E Munro and Margaret Davies (eds), The Ashgate Research Companion to Feminist Legal Theory (Ashgate 2013) 27–47; Margaret Thornton, ‘The Public/Private Dichotomy: Gendered and Discriminatory’ (1991) 18(4) Journal of Law and Society 448–463; Margaret Davies, ‘Law's Truths and the Truth About Law: Interdisciplinary Refractions’ in Vanessa E Munro and Margaret Davies (eds), The Ashgate Research Companion to Feminist Legal Theory (Ashgate 2013) 65–81; Linda Alcoff, Rape and Resistance (Polity Press 2018).
96 Kimberly A. Lonsway, Lilia M. Cortina and Vicki J. Magley ‘Sexual Harassment Mythology: Definition, Conceptualization, and Measurement’ (2000) 58 Sex Roles 599, 600.
97 ibid 68.
98 Australian Human Rights Commission, Respect@Work: National Inquiry into Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces (2020).
99 ibid 141–42.
100 Nationwide News v Rush [209–216].
101 Rush v Nationwide News [327–28].
102 ibid [328].
103 ibid.
104 On epistemic harm within testimony see Kristie Dotson, ‘Tracking Epistemic Violence, Tracking Practices of Silencing’ (2011) 26(2) Hypatia 235.
105 Transcript of Proceedings (n 51) 547.
106 Transcript of Proceedings (n 43) 29.
107 ibid 31.
108 Transcript of Proceedings (n 51) 554.
109 Transcript of Proceedings (n 43) 33.
110 Australian Human Rights Commission, Everyone's Business: Fourth National Survey on Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces (2018).
111 Bruner (n 22) 85.
112 Transcript of Proceedings (n 43) 32.
113 Rush v Nationwide News [627].
114 ibid [336].
115 Harradine (n 8) 13.
116 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s.44(3) provides a procedure by which witnesses may be cross-examined on previous representations of other persons.
117 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s.69.
118 Transcript of Proceedings (n 43) 27.
119 ibid 24.
120 Rush v Nationwide News [363].
121 Nationwide News v Rush [150]–[176].
122 Harradine (n 8) 15.
123 AHRC (n 98) 7.
124 Rush v Nationwide News [521].
125 ibid [526].
126 AHRC (n 98) 124.
127 Rush v Nationwide News [527].
128 AHRC (n 110) 81.
129 Rush v Nationwide News [496]
130 ibid [465].
131 ibid [500].
132 Transcript of Proceedings (n 51) 529.
133 Rush v Nationwide News [543].
134 ibid [545].
135 ibid [598].
136 ibid [394].
137 ibid [579].
138 ibid [612].
139 ibid [579].
140 ibid [612].
141 ibid [579].
142 ibid [612].
143 ibid [613].
144 ibid [621].
145 ibid [590].
146 Harradine (n 8) 14.
147 Rush v Nationwide News [1].
148 ibid [327].
149 ibid.
150 Transcript of Proceedings (n 51) 543.
151 Transcript of Proceedings (n 51) 515.
152 See Jess Hill ‘The Reckoning: How #MeToo is changing Australia’ Quarterly Essay November 2021; Virginia Trioli Generation F. Why we still struggle with sex and power (Simone & Schuster, 2019).
153 Eryn Jean Norvill, 'Eryn Jean Norvill responds to Justice Wigney's verdict outside court on Thursday' ABC News 11 April 2019 <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-11/eryn-jean-norvill-responds-to-geoffrey-rush-verdict/10994612> accessed 8 March 2024.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Sarah Ailwood
Sarah Ailwood is Senior Lecturer in the School of Law, University of Wollongong. Her research investigates feminist legal theory and practice through a law, literature and humanities lens, spanning the present and the past. Her current projects investigate relationships between voice, listening and law reform in the context of the #MeToo moment, with a particular focus on sexual harassment.