DAY 13 of the #JulianAssange extradition hearing will begin soon. Our live tweets will be on this thread.
Join us at 5pm BST for Joe Lauria @unjoe's live report on the day's proceedings.
Today's witnesses are expected to be be Dr Blackwood & Dr Sondra Crosby. Judge arrives.
Dr Blackwood his seen #Assange at Belmarsh & found him moderately depressed but he believes there has been improvement & Belmarsh has been managing this.
#Assange was engaged in activities in June and responding to letters. He had become thinking about suicide. In July he said he didn't want to take his own life but contemplating his circumstances he often thought about it.
Nurse reported him saying he felt like a living ghost
Blackwood talks abt #Assange's time isolated in health care. Having difficulty reading & sleeping.
After lockdown, #Assange's state improved. Dr Daly saw him in February. He was not suicidal. He was deemed fit to stand trial.
In further meetings w/ Blackwood JA seemed engaged.
Blackwood: #Assange spoke to me about the isolation of health care. Said it had turned him into "a hallucinating puppet on the floor". He was angry about that. Said it was an affront to his intelligence.
Blackwood is challenging Kopelman's diagnosis. He says the local records need to be looked at. He is giving an opposing diagnosis that would only admit to mild symptoms, if any, of autism. Talking about #Assange's warmth & wit.
Elevated but not substantial risk of suicide.
Lewis: Would #Assange receive the same meds in the US?
Blackwood: Something similar
Edward Fitzgerald: When JA moved to health care... on May 18 2019 at 2.30pm, Belmarsh staff raised concerns. "Low in mood. Hard to control thoughts of suicide. Assange wanted to go to health care." Did you see this?
B No, I thought it was about his exposure in the video footage.
EF: This is very different to what Dr Daly told you
B: Dr Daly looks after his long-term health
EF: She didn't mention this report
EF You agree on #Assange's long-term mental health record.
B Yes. I don't agree w/ Dr Kopelman
EF: Well let's find some common ground
Blackwood agrees that #Assange could have been severely depressed in December but moderate in March.
EF points out that Blackwood has not seen all the documents - namely a Belmarsh staff report that JA had been in a very bad way for days before transportation to health care unit
Blackwood: People are taken to healthcare in various states.
EF has B confirms a list of JA's medications while at Belmarsh. Notes a letter from Kopelman suggesting a particular drug for a symptom he describes [Kopelman has been denying this more extreme symptom of depression].
Blackwood: It was a low dose
EF: But then it was increased.
B: I agree there must have been a clinical condition for that drug to be prescribed.
EF: So it's the same condition you doctors see, but while you say it's mild, Kopelman says he has seen it severe.
B: Yes
Braidwood is arguing that #Assange is resilient. He suggests he might be able to handle the process of extradition.
EF reading to Blackwood that segregation exacerbates mental illness; that 50% of suicides are among segregated prisoners. Blackwood qualifying those stats
EF [Reads} "Assange will be confined to a small cell almost every minute of the day..."
B That is most severe and yes it would have an impact
EF [Reads Maureen Baird on SAMS in NY] "In cell almost 24 hrs/ day. Only contact via a slot on the door... JA would experience this"
B My understanding is that SAMS conditions can vary. I am relying on Mr Kromberg's affidavit
EF Kromberg says there is no solitary confinement, so you simply echo that in your report? Eric Lewis says there is. Maureen Baird says there is. You don't mention this?
B is stumbling
Why did you come to a conclusion about something the judge should decide, namely that it would be unjust or oppressive to send #Assange to a US prison.
B [somewhat rattled] I think #Assange's mood is manageable...
EF We'll take a break for now
Fitzgerald to Dr Blackwood: You were just addressing the question of whether #Assange would be able to resist the impulse to suicide, not whether it would be inhumane to subject someone in his condition to a US prison?
Blackwood : Yes to the former & the latter is for the judge
EF So your predictions would be depending on a knowledge of US prisons?
B Yes
EF But you don't know much about Federal prisons in the US?
B: No
FE: You read Eric Lewis's before making yours? Or the report by Eric Sickler?
B: No, I hadn't read them. I read Mr Kromberg's statement
EF: Do you accept that given the condition of Mr Assange, he would be negatively affected if subjected to inhumane conditions of detention? ie SAMS as described by Maureen Baird as a basic regime
Blackwood: I think in solitary with no contact w/ his support group & therapy, yes
EF: Do you now accept that #Assange was taken to the medical wing because of his deteriorating condition?
B: That seems to be the case from the Belmarsh staff report
EF: Would you agree that Dr Korson is the person #Assange has opened up to?
B: Yes
EF: Did you speak w/ her?
No
EF: Do you agree that isolation didn't agree w/ Assange?
B: Relative isolation. He was in a medical ward.
EF: Do you see that from July 21st 2020, there are many records of #Assange requesting Samaritan's phone. "Couldn't handle things"?
B: You have to be careful of context.
EF: You're not an expert in US prisons, but you were aware of @xychelsea's attempted suicide in the same prison where #Assange will go. Shouldn't you have acknowledged this?
B: I was aware. It is dealt with in my report.
EF: How can one get inside someone's head & predict?
B: I think the extent of Mr #Assange's disorder is such that he would be able to resist suicide. Some doctors, such as Dr Katharine Humphries have made definitive statements to the contrary...
EF: Her statement has been accepted by the prosecution.
EF: Are you an expert in Asperger's syndrome
B: No but I deal with inmates who suffer from this condition
EF: Are you familiar with these stats, that people with this condition more likely to succeed with suicide?
B: ?
EF: We have requested your notes. Will you pass them on?
Yes
EF: You do have notes regarding interviews with #Assange & Dr Daly?
B: Yes
James Lewis re-examines
Maureen Baird only deals with SAMS conditions in Colorado.
Fitzgerald
That's wrong. She says it would be the same in Alexandria Detention Centre (the pre-trial holding area)
Lewis asks Blackwood to confirm Dr Daly's seniority relative to other medical staff.
End of questions
Edward Fitzgerald has obtained evidence he wishes to submit. Baraitser grants permission to "take it under advisement".
Next witness is Dr Sondra Crosby
Dr Sondra Crosby has joined the hearing but her connection is poor. Bad echo and she can't hear the court well. Being swore in.
Dr Sondra Crosby stands by the contents of her statement to the court.
EF: You saw #Assange on a number of occasions from Oct 2017?
SC: Yes. The purpose of the first visit was to observe the effects of living in the embassy with what had then been 5.5 years.
EF: You've dealt w/ people suffering from PTSD?
SC: Yes
EF: You visited him in Belmarsh, in Oct 2019 & in 2020
SC: Yes
EF: You make observations act how his physical health has suffered due to long-term psychological trauma?
SC: Yes, when I 1st saw him in 2017, he showed signs of depression but he was coping. When I saw him in Feb 2018, he talked about his thoughts of suicide. He spoke of a man who had exposed war crimes suicide on TV. Assange analysed his suicide frame-by-frame.
SC: I was concerned about his mental condition & long-term tooth ache. His condition deteriorated over subsequent visits. He looked substantially different. He couldn't think straight. Couldn't remember names. Appeared severely depressed. Talked abt suicide. Pleaded for help
SC When I saw #Assange in Oct 209 he met all the DSM-5 criteria for severe depression. He is at high risk of completing a suicide if extradited to the US.
Assange also suffers from osteoporosis & has suffered multiple fractures. I believe this has never been treated.
James Lewis X-exam of Sondra Crosby
JL: Would it be fair to say you are sympathetic to Mr Assange's cause
SC No it would not be fair at all
JL Haven't all JA's medical problems been treated.
SC: No, further testing is needed. He certainly is receiving medication.
SC: My last contact was in Jan 2020
JL: Were members of the legal team present when you visited Assange?
SC: Yes
JL: You communicated your concerns to @NilsMelzer. Is his report fair & balanced?
SC: I only rely on the medical experts. I have no opinion on the political dimension
JL: Are you aware no one extradited from the UK has ever committed suicide?
SC: I'm not an expert on that.
End of X-exam
Re-exam Sondra Crosby
Just confirming that she can provide insight that no one else can.
End of testimony Dr Sondra Crosby
10 mins break
Julian and Stella on either side of the glass box, heads almost touching. Warden respectfully keeping his distance.
Statement by Christopher Butler from Wayback Machine.
Confirms has certain snapshots of @Wikileaks website
"My name is John Young, owner of cryptome.org. I published the unreacted cables on Sept 1st 2010. Still there today. Legal in the US. Never asked to remove."
Correction: that's the unredacted cables that were first published in the US by John Young of cryptome.org - not by @Wikileaks.
He's also published a few interesting items of late...
Correction: The man #Assange saw commit suicide on TV was on trial for war crimes. Dr Crosby said Assange was studying the expression on the man's face frame-by-frame.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Day Two of the closing arguments for Antoinette Lattouf v. Australian Broadcasting Corporation will begin at 9.45am AEDT / 5.45pm EST today. We will be providing live updates on this thread.
Proceedings may be viewed on this link for the duration of today's session.
We heard from Lattouf's lawyers yesterday. Today will be the closing arguments for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Justice Darryl Rangiah presides, and Ian Neil SC (IN) will speak for the ABC.
Court in session. Lattouf lawyer Oshie Fagir (OF) tenders 3 documents. Number one is a medical opinion concerning the definition of disability, saying there is no difference between the underlying condition and its manifestation. Other documents concern the testimony of the decision-makers and their reasons for the actions they took.
Day One of the closing arguments for Antoinette Lattouf v. Australian Broadcasting Corporation will begin at 10.15am AEDT / 6.15pm EST today. We will be providing live updates on this thread.
Proceedings may be viewed on this link for the duration of today's session.
Our reporting on days one to seven of witness testimonies of Lattouf v. ABC are on these threads.
Last day of witness testimony for Lattouf v. ABC will begin in about 30 minutes. Live updates will be on this thread and the proceedings will be live-streamed from the Federal Court of Australia on this link:
Yesterday ended with the former ABC Chair Ita Buttrose claiming she had nothing to do with @antoinette_news' sacking, despite evidence of a number of emails she sent to subordinates that appeared to apply pressure for this outcome.
She stated in court: "I'm not happy and I wasn't happy. I didn't wish her to be removed. I didn't put pressure on anybody. It's a fantasy of your own imagination. I have nothing to do with her dismissal".
Court in session.
Judge: A media organisation has published information that was subject to a suppression order. I ask that this organisation consider their position & avoid further action.
Announcement of document that has arrived.
Next witness with be Elizabeth Green (direct manager of Lattouf). There is an objection to a part of her affidavit, starting with "this is because...". Judge reads & Lattouf lawyer objects on relevance. What is revenant is what she said or intended to say in a meeting.
Judge: Isn't that favourable for you
LL: Potentially but what is relevant is what preceded her characterisation of what she said.
Judge: I will provisionally let that evidence be led & we can deal with the matter in closing submissions.
Green takes the stand. Confirms her name & position as producer of Sydney 'Drive' show.
LL refers Green to her affidavit.
EG: It's details of a Teams meeting + screenshot I took.
Barrister Philip Boncardo for Lattouf: Did you see complaints about AL?
EG: Yes
PB: Were you told they were from lobby groups?
EG: No, not that I recall.
PB: Re conversations with Ahern. he asked you to look at AL's post. Did you know they about Israel-Palestine?
EG: Yes
PB asks about specifics of what EG said to Lattouf about social media posting & about communication to Ms McBean, legal council.
EG: I said she should be mindful, avoid posting anything about Israel-Palestine.
PB: AL had asked if she had done anything wrong
EG: I told her she was doing a good job, but keep a low profile on social media.
PB: Did you tell Lattouf she should not post anything that might appear unbalanced or not impartial.
EG: Yes
PB: Nothing about Israel-Palestine?
EG: yes I believe so
PB: You said it was OK to post anything factual and from a verified organisation?
EG: Yes
PB: Nothing controversial?
EG: Yes
PB: You got an email from AL outlining what was OK to post & you forwarded this to Ahern. And you both OKd this?
EG: Yes
PB: You gave Lattouf good feedback on her show?
EG: Yes
PB: You were copied in on an email sent by Ahern detailing why AL was on the show.
EG: Yes
PB: When you learned of an intention to dismiss AL you raised an objection that there was nothing wrong with her post?
EG: yes
PB: You were at the dismissal meeting with Ahern & Lattouf where it was explained she had breached the social media policy. Did AL say she had discussed what was OK with you?
EG: Yes
PB: Al was crying & you spent time with here. You said you were sorry & had tried to stop this, but it was coming from higher up?
EG: yes
PB: AL asked if it was about the @hrw post & you said it was about it not being balanced.
EG: Yes
PB: And she said: "How can you balance starvation (as a 'weapon of war')?
EG: I don't recall that.
PB: You said you would love AL to work at the ABC again.
EG: Yes
PB: You made notes, saying you had heard the decision came from Mr Anderson. Heard from whom?
Lattouf v. ABC will resume in the Federal Court of Australia in about 20 minutes time & we'll hear from five witnesses over the two days. Updates are on this thread & the proceedings can be viewed on this link.
@antoinette_news Day Six of Lattouf v. ABC in session. Judge makes announcement about violations of the confidentiality of complainants' names & addresses - and the uploading of unredacted material to the publicly available online files. ABC lawyer apologises for the human error.
@antoinette_news Today we will hear from Ahern, Buttrose & Green. Statement from ABC: does not deny the existence of the Lebanese race or ethnic extraction & that Ms Lattouf is Lebanese. Does deny this has anything to do with her dismissal.
Our DAY FIVE reporting on the Lattouf v. ABC case will be on this thread and starting at 9.30am AEDT, the proceedings can be viewed via this link ⬇️
We arrived at a point yesterday where David Anderson, the Managing Director of the ABC (Australia's national broadcaster) testified that @antoinette_news' mention of "Illegally occupied territories" of #Gaza could be interpreted as anti-semitic hate speech.
The Australian journalists' union @withMEAA has since issued a statement about outside interference that may have influenced such views within the ABC.
Court in session. Calling Christopher Nicolas Oliver-Taylor (O-T), Chief Content Officer (COT) for ABC.
Changes since affidavit - resigned from ABC.
Screenshot shown from Teams meeting
Oshie Fagir: You took a religious oath
O-T: Yes, I'm Catholic
OF: Do you know what a managed exit is?
O-T: No
OF: Do you use Signal & did you communicate about Ms Lattouf over Signal
O-T: Yes & yes, with Mr Latimer
OF reads O-T's job description - ensures compliance for editorial policies (EdPols) - - formerly over 1K people
OF - Do you understand EdPols govern on air content, and then there are Guidelines for personal use of social media & ABC distinguishes the two?
O-T Yes, but it depends on the circumstances?
OF- So personal social media activity is not ABC content & not subject to EdPols. Agree?
O-T Yes, but impartiality can come into play
OF: You were also bound by EdPols?
O-T: Yes
OF draws O-T's attention to the subject of misconduct = where employee disobeys a reasonable and lawful direction.
OF You understand the difference between direction, request and suggestion?
O-T: Yes
OF: The way Ms Lattouf (AL) was dealt with was highly abnormal. Agree?
O-T: No
OF: Ms Green was AL's line manager. Wasn't it unusual for you & ABC's MD to be involved in scrutinising the conduct of a 5-day casual employee? You disagreed.
O-T: Nods
OF: Social media misconduct should have nothing to do with EdPols or the COT, but be managed by line manager.
O-T: Not unless the MD refers it to COT. It was managed by line manager but others involved to.
OF: When did you consult with people in Culture?
O-T: I did not
OF: You understood that Lattouf was not a high profile personality?
O-T: Yes
OF: You were aware of her race & national extraction?
O-T: No
OF: You see this email you wrote, where you say she is a Lebanese Christian?
O-T: I copy/pasted this content from Mr Ahern...
OF: Of course you knew. Were you confused by this? You understand that there is a race called Lebanese Christian?
ABC lawyer: Objection
Judge asks O-T to leave the room
OF reminds judge that Fair Work Act permits use of race as a national or ethnic category
OF to O-T: You understand Lattouf was Lebanese?
O-T: I wasn't really aware of all the content of my email send to MD Anderson.
OF: You just copy/paste content to email and send?
O-T: In some cases. The criteria. for Lattouf's selection were put together by someone else.
OF: You understood Lattouf's position on the Israel-Gaza war before she was hired?
O-T: More as the week continued. I don't know if I understood her position but I knew there were published comments relating to question of partiality as a host of a live radio show.
OF: You understood when you caused her to be removed from the air that Lattouf held a view that media orgs should report ethically on Israel-Palestine?
O-T: I didn't know she held that view
OF refers to O-T sent to Ahern & Latimer, questioning her suitability for the job because of her position on Israel-Palestine & because she signed a petition.
OF: You knew her political stance when you fired her, that she was critical of the State of Israel?
O-T: No
OF: You knew she had signed a petition calling for ethical reporting on the war?
O-T: It wasn't about that, She wasn't supposed to post anything during her period of employment
OF: He dismissal was precipitated by a social media post? When did you become aware of that?
O-T: Yes. during a Teams meeting,. It was a slide shared by Mr Latimer
OF: You gave evidence at the Fair Work Commission that you had never seen that post. O-T says his memory is not clear.
OF moves on to the week of Lattouf's dismissal. O-T says he was looking at ways she could be kept on air.
OF refers to correspondence about Lattouf. There is no indication here that you saw her posts relating to diversity of voices and Israel's use of starvation as a weapon of war. Correct?
O-T: I can't recall. I believe I was told by Mr Latimer
OF reads from O-T affidavit, questions the use of language defining partiality. Asks if those are lawyer's words or his.
O-T: I don't know how to answer that
OF : You understand there is an obligation for ABC employees to be impartial. On what issues?
O-T: That's a broad question but if you're a live radio host you should be impartial, there are some topics where it becomes difficult to hold personal view.
OF: The obligation applies at all times or only at work
O-T: It depends on the circumstances
OF: And if you are radio host, it applies to all subject matter? Did you understand that when Lattouf was employed by ABC she should be impartial on all subject matter at all times?
O-T: No? (O-T speaking very quietly)
OF: Lattouf was hosting the 'Mornings' show and it was a (politically) light show. That her work was not related to the Israel-Gaza war?
O-T: Yes, but there were news breaks & that was the hottest news story at the time.
OF: You wrote "her work is not related to the Israel-Gaza war. You knew the content of 'Mornings' was significantly watered down coming up to Christmas.
OF: You knew Lattouf did not present the news. That was a completely different person & different department. Correct?
O-T: Yes
OF: Was Lattouf sacked for breaching a direction?
O-T: Yes, and was not impartial - and this could have affected perception of her impartiality on air.
OF: Who gave the direction not to pst on social media
O-T: I believe it was Mr Ahern
OF: Because she was known to have certain opinions about the Israel-Gaza War?
O-T: I was told that
OF: What was her view?
O-T: I'm not sure
OF: You took a decision without knowing anything about her views?
O-T: I'm not an expert on the issues. I was told there was a problem related to impartiality.
OF: You knew complaints were made by a pro-Israel lobby?
O-T: I knew there had been a number of complaints. I don't believe I knew it was a lobby. It was by people who held a different view to Ms Lattouf. That was clear.
OF: You understood that the complaints were about her position on the Israel-Gaza war.
O-T: Yes
OF: You have been instructed not to acknowledge Ms Lattouf's position & just use the catch-phrase "impartiality", right?
O-T: I don't agree with that statement.
OF On Dec 18, did you know who Lattouf was?
O-T: I don't think so
OF: Did Anderson know her?
O-T: I don't know sir
OF: You knew complaints were about her position on the war?
O-T: Yes, Mr Anderson told me
OF: And you told Mr Ahern to seek advice Latimer & Saska?
O-T: Yes they were the experts on subject matter
OF: On what basis has the ABC authority to forbid Lattouf from expressing her views?
O-T: Our concern about impartiality
OF You note Latimer's advice that the ABC could not expect a casual presenter's view to be consistent with ABC policy at all times? You agree with that?
O-T: Yes
OF: And you note Melkman's comments about her Crikey article, that it was clearly journalistic work?
OF: Yes
O-T: You agreed with Melkman's view (as acting editorial director)?
O-T: Yes
OF You then get an email from Ahern & see mention of Lattouf's views on the Israel-Gaza war. Did you read it?
O-T: Briefly
OF: You had a lot of emails about this. Was it a priority issue?
O-T: Yes but it wasn't about something I knew much about.
OF: Your affidavit speaks of what was in your mind the week of the dismissal.
O-T: There were lots of things going on. I was running 9 radio stations & 4 RV channels
OF: But there's a lot about this matter in you affidavit.
O-T: I remember different things at different times.
OF: You have no reason to doubt what was in Ahern's email? Your view when you wrote to the MD was that Lattouf had expressed views that would be problematic?
O-T: During her period of employment
OF You understood there would be no coverage of Israel-Gaza that week?
O-T: Yes
OF: Did you think AL's signing a petition was relevant?
O-T: No but others were concerned
OF: You recall a series of texts the MD sent you that evening of Dec 18?
O-T: Yes
OF, referring to the one saying MD thought "we have an Antoinette problem. Her socials are full of anti-semitic hatred" and doubting ABC could have someone like that on air. Did you think he was right?
O-T: I did know much about the issue. I was concerned that she was on live radio.
OF: You had no idea what she was posting?
O-T: I agreed with Anderson that we had a problem because she was live.
OF: You were sent a screenshot about Crikey reporting by Lattouf & Cameron Wilson. What's problematic about her contributing to a Crikey article?
O-T: My concern was that she was live.
OF: ABC journalists publish articles every day where they express their opinions. Should this disqualify them from working at the ABC.
O-T: I'm not a journalist. When an MD uses words like "ant-semitic hatred" I become concerned.
OF: Didn't you say you didn't know anything about Lattouf's views, but were aware on the evening of Dec 18 that she was critical of the State of Israel?
O-T: MD told me that and supplied a screenshot.
Judge asks O-T to leave court. Discussion about line of questioning. OF says O-T was a decision-maker. The allegation was that Lattouf was sacked because of her political views. He wants to educe evidence that O-T was ate of those views. Judge suggests he take question in two steps. O-T returns.
Our DAY FOUR reporting on the Lattouf v. ABC case will be on this thread and starting at 10.45am AEDT, the proceedings can be viewed via this link ⬇️
@antoinette_news #LattoufvABC Day 4 hearing will begin in 15 minutes.
Lattouf lawyer Oshie Fagir (OF) continues questioning ABC managing director Mr Anderson (A).
Establishes that being fired by Australia's national broadcaster is a serious matter. Reminds A that he said all staff were well aware of ABC policies and guidelines.
OF: I asked if there were other rules not communicated to staff & only in the minds of management.
A: No, I cited sections of the EdPols regarding objectivity, which are in part informed by guidelines.
OF: What is objective journalism? Does that require qualification?
A: Reads extract and claims this to be clear.
OF Your view is that if a person's conduct in their private communications is perceived not to be impartial then that undermines the ABC's integrity?
A: That is the starting point for an investigation.
OF: You recall we spoke about a number of other ABC presenters who had made statements that were clearly not impartial, yet they were not sanctioned.
A: Because they were based on fact.
OF: So it didn't matter that millions of Australian would disagree with the statement "Australia is a racist country and always has been", by Laura Tingle?
A: No
OF: The critical point is whether the statement is true?
A: Yes
OF: Would you agree that the process you describe is arbitrary?
A: No, an investigation ensues & someone senior decides whether there should be a sanction or removal.
OF: Who decides whether a statement is true?
A: A delegate decides whether the statement is accurate.
Judge: Is this a typical process or the process.
A: Sometimes no decision needs to be made since there is no case to answer.
OF: You understand Ms Lattouf was fired because she posted something on social media. Was this process followed?
A: No
OF: You are the ABC's MD & have a deep understanding of its processes for dealing with misconduct. I want to understand your views on these processes.
ABC lawyer objects on relevance. A asked to leave the court.
OF: I want to understand why A took no steps to ensure an investigation took place, as required in the process he describes.
Judge: Are you suggesting A's understanding of the enterprise agreement is relevant?
OF: Yes, and according to ABC processes, I want to determine why he did not assure compliance.
Judge: I deem the line of questioning relevant.
ABC: Word of caution about the actual nature of the pleading.
OF to A: Should a process have been followed that wasn't.
A: I think an assessment was warranted. My understanding is that allegations were not put to Ms Lattouf.
OF: Nor was a support person or outside assessor appointed?
A: No, Ms Lattouf was not approached.
OF: In the case of Laura Tingle she was counseled but not in relation to her comments about racism in Australia?
A: Correct
OF: Complaints have been made about ABC presenter Paul Barry?
A: Yes
OF: He was never taken off air?
A: No
OF: And companies were received about John Lyons & Patricia Karvalas?
A: Yes
OF: Sanctioned or taken off air?
A: No
OF: So expressing political opinion does not necessarily cause sanction or dismissal?
A: No
OF: I'm suggesting ABC processes invite arbitrary decision-making, ultimately resting upon a delegate's own view?
A: There is a process of assessment
OF: And the presenter would normally be aware of what they had done?
A: Yes
Judge asks A to leave the room. Addresses OF. I thought you would ask A why he had not assured due process. Can you do this more directly?
OF: You know Lattouf was not a political reporter for the ABC?
A: Yes
OF: And so her personal social media post could not have had an impact on her partiality in air?
A: It could have.
OF: The ABC was subject to a coordinated campaign about Ms Lattouf?
A Yes, there were about 50 emails that were worded almost the same.
OF: Bearing in mind that it is not uncommon for the ABC to "ruffle feathers", are such communications looked into?
A: Yes
OF: How did you learn about the WhatsApp campaign?
A: I was told by a subordinate that the campaign was coordinated via WhatsApp. The emails were clogging up my email account. They were all the same so I stopped reading them.
OF: They said Ms Lattouf was anti-semitic.
A: Yes.
OF: You knew the campaign was coordinated by Lawyers for Israel?
A: I learned that later.
OF: You came to agree with the complaints that Ms Lattouf's criticism of Israel were ant-semitic?
A: I looked at her social media posts. I can't remember exactly what constituted anti-semitic hatred; whether it was her statements or surrounding statements.
OF: You mean other people's statements?
A: Yes. I became concerned about what Lattouf might say on air.