Craig McLachlan case: judge rules potential witnesses cannot remain anonymous

Christie Whelan Browne Craig McLachlan performing on stage.

The NSW Supreme Court has rejected an application for the identities of three potential witnesses in actor Craig McLachlan's defamation trial to be suppressed.

The 52-year-old is suing the ABC, Fairfax Media and actress Christie Whelan Browne for defamation over articles that appeared in print and on screen in January 2018.

McLachlan said reports that he engaged in sexual misconduct, harassment, bullying and indecent assault towards three female cast members during a 2014 production of the Rocky Horror Show are untrue and have damaged his reputation and mental health.

The other two women in the coverage were actresses Angela Scundi and Erika Heynatz, however McLachlan is not suing them.

After filing their defence documents with the court last week, the media organisations and Ms Whelan Browne told the court they would like to file another document with indecent assault allegations concerning three more people involved with the 2014 production of the Rocky Horror Show.

However defence barrister Lyndelle Barnette said those people wanted to remain anonymous and if the court would not suppress their identities, at least two of them would be withdrawn from the defence case.

She added that one of the three had already made a complaint to police about McLachlan and in a criminal court that person would be entitled to anonymity.

McLachlan's barrister, Stuart Littlemore QC, argued against the application, saying it was premature and did not relate to "a party" in the proceedings.

Today Justice Lucy McCallum rejected the application to suppress the people's identities because she did not have enough information about what their evidence would be.

"The ultimate difficulty with the application... is that I am simply unable to assess how important the three persons identified in the affidavit are to the defence," Justice McCallum said.

She ordered that the defendants pay Mr McLachlan's costs for the application, but added that she would be open to hearing an amended suppression order application later.

The case returns to the NSW Supreme Court next month.

Let's block ads! (Why?)