ABC told of Griffith’s concerns prior to broadcast
In his third day in the witness box, the FHA’s Chief Executive Officer Sam Belfield described the shock and violation biologist Jeremy Griffith felt after the defamatory Four Corners program aired in 1995.
“Mr Griffith was shocked, distressed,” said Mr Belfield. “In particular by the extent and treatment of his ideas in the program…he felt violated by the program.”
As a result of Four Corners, which the ABC televised a second time the following week, Mr Griffith became “incredibly stressed”, he said.
Earlier, Mr Belfield gave evidence about a range of actions the plaintiffs initiated in the weeks prior to the defamatory broadcast including the retention of public relations company Jackson Wells Communications.
The Supreme Court was tendered a bundle of documents including letters sent to the ABC from both Jackson Wells and Mr Griffith alleging that the program’s guest producer Reverend David Millikan had misrepresented himself and raising serious concerns about the nature of the pending broadcast.
A letter of 6 April 1995 from Jackson Wells to the then executive producer of Four Corners, Ian Carroll, set out the plaintiffs’ position:
“Given that the Foundation believes Dr Millikan misrepresented the purpose of his assignment, and was not candid about his real views, we believe your decision to deny a debate is unjust.”
A letter the next day from Mr Griffith to Reverend Millikan took up a similar theme:
“… you said you were nominating the understandings in my books for a 16 part international documentary on new ideas for the next millennium - the series you said (24/1/95) is ‘an attempt to gather seminal thinkers who are not part of the mainstream but who should be put forward…I’m interested in what you are saying in terms of the progress for the future of Australia and the world.’ ”.
“… We cooperated with you on the basis of taking you at face value but you turned all that goodwill, spirit and trust around, misrepresenting to us yourself, your interest and the nature of the program”, wrote Mr Griffith.
Further correspondence preceded a Jackson Wells memorandum of 13 April 1995 directed to the then Managing Director of the ABC, Brian Johns, calling for his personal intervention:
“Dr Millikan is using the apparatus of the ABC to pursue some kind of personal obsession against the Foundation and Jeremy Griffith, its director, in particular.”
“This is being done through a range of methods including selective reporting, misrepresentation and the perpetuation of half truths…The circumstances of the program’s making are steeped in obsessive behaviour and deceit.”
After evidence-in-chief concluded, Mr Belfield was cross-examined by counsel for the defendants, Bret Walker SC, for the balance of the day.
The trial continues tomorrow.
