Witness X comes forward in Geoffrey Rush defamation trial

A bid to introduce “vital evidence” from a surprise new “Witness X” into the Geoffrey Rush defamation trial is being considered by a Federal Court judge over the weekend.

The court heard the allegations against Mr Rush in the new affidavit pointed to the actor’s “state of mind” and showed “scandalously inappropriate behaviour” that was “of a sexual nature” in the theatre.

The 67-year-old is suing The Daily Telegraph over a series of articles late in 2017 which reported that a young actress had lodged a complaint with the Sydney Theatre Company over his alleged “inappropriate behaviour.”

The actress was later named as Eryn Jean Norvill, who played Mr Rush’s daughter Cordelia in the STC production.

Ms Norvill and Mr Rush sat on opposite sides of the courtroom yesterday as Judge Justice Michael Wigney was told that “Witness X”, whose name has been suppressed, had approached Telegraph lawyers to come forward with her new evidence last Friday.

The newspaper’s barrister Tom Blackburn SC said the offer of new evidence from “Witness X” had taken the newspaper by surprise. He said it was “vital evidence” that goes to the heart of the case.

It came after Ms Norvill had told the court earlier in the week that she had felt “trapped” as Mr Rush “slowly” and “deliberately” ran his fingers over her right breast as she played dead on the stage.

She said she felt “belittled, embarrassed” and “shamed” after the Oscar winner gestured groping her breasts while bulging his eyes and licking his lips during play rehearsals. Mr Rush denied the allegations.

Mr Blackburn said the proposed amended defence from Witness X was highly corroborative and was evidence of Mr Rush’s behaviour.

He told the judge it included documents that “were sent after the event at which the incidents happened and over a period of around four years.”

Judge Michael Wigney said Mr Rush had already spent three days in the witness box and allowing the new evidence to be added to the case so late in the trial meant he would have to be recalled again after a six month delay.

“To say that it’s less than desirable is the biggest understatement I’ve ever heard. At the end of the case, we have to conduct a whole new trial in relation to completely separate matters,” he said.

“This would cause the most egregious prejudice to Mr Rush personally, his family … to his health and economically, commercially.

“To be blunt, that’s what concerns me more than anything else.”

Mr Blackburn said excluding the new evidence could lead to “the potential loss of public confidence in the legal system.”

He said it would help settle “the stark divide” between what Mr Rush said did not happen and what Ms Norvill said did happen.

Mr Rush’s barrister Kieran Smark said the newspaper had “pestered Ms X since shortly after the commencement of the proceedings”.

“Who has ever, at least in the modern era, been allowed to restart a case when the consequences of doing so bring such great prejudice on the opposing parties,” he said.

Judge Wigney responded: “There’s nothing even remotely comparable to this. It’s not just money, but people, and lives, and there are no winners.”

Mr Smark said that allowing the evidence to be heard in court meant Mr Rush would “suffer great harm” to his reputation and could take no legal action to defend himself. He added that likening it to a slight embarrassment was “like saying losing a leg in a car accident is a soft tissue injury”.

Judge Wigney reserved his decision until at least Monday.

The Oscar winner denies any wrongdoing and claims two front page articles in the newspaper about the alleged incident painted him as a “pervert” and “sexual predator”.

The newspaper argues the stories published on November 30 and December 1 last year draw on allegations made by Ms Norvill and are true.

Let's block ads! (Why?)