There is a lust in man no charm can tame
Of loudly publishing his neighbour's shame:
On eagles’ wings immortal scandals fly,
While virtuous deeds are merely born and die.
Attributed to the English physician William Harvey, 1578-1657.
Why
readers’ comments and some paragraphs of my own have upset Mr X and caused him
to threaten to sue me
From his lawyer Richard Graham's Notice of Concerns:
“24. The passages [complained
of], in the context that the words appear, meant and were understood to
mean…that [Mr X]:
(a) has indecently exposed himself to female staff at the Shire of
York;
(b) has engaged in acts of sexual harassment in the workplace;
(c) is a criminal in that he has engaged in criminal acts of indecent
exposure;
(d) is a sexual predator;
(e) is a pervert;
(f) is likely to indecently expose himself in his next place of
employment;
(g) is a liar;
(h) has deliberately concealed a decision from the public that might
have attracted adverse criticism if made known to the public; and
(i) is not fit to hold office in local government…
28. My client instructs me
that each of the imputations are totally false, without basis and constitute serious
defamations of my client. [Should
read ‘each…is’—oh, never mind, my New Year’s resolution was to try to stop
being a grammar nazi. JP]
29. My client instructs me
that he resigned from the Shire of York due to personal health reasons.”
The Notice (which unsurprisingly is marked
‘Private and Confidential’ and ‘Not to be republished’) goes on to state that
the harm done to Mr X’s professional reputation by publication of the
imputations complained of will hinder his chance of securing future employment in
his field of work and has caused him to suffer ‘stress, anxiety and depression’.
My
reply to Mr X’s lawyer
Here, bar certain details that might easily
identify his client, is the text of my letter to Mr Graham.
5 January 2018
Richard Graham
Vogt Graham Lawyers
PO Box 102
NORTHBRIDGE WA 6865
By email to rgraham@vogtgraham.com.au
Dear Sir,
RE:
CONCERNS NOTICE—[MR X]
I acknowledge receipt of your letter and enclosure of
13 December 2017.
It appears that your client has been much less than
candid in his instructions.
Comments published on The REAL Voice of York that contain imputations by which he claims
to be ‘seriously aggrieved’ are in my view defensible under section 25 of the
Defamation Act on the basis that they are, at the very least, substantially
true.
However, because I believe your client is more to be
pitied than blamed, I have removed comments identifying him by name or his
former position at the Shire of York. It is not my intention to publish further such
comments.
I have not removed the comment complained of from
‘Roger’ (28 November 2017) because it does not identify your client.
Nor have I removed the reference to your client in the
Shedding Principle section of ‘Notes from Underground’…What I wrote there was
true. Not only did your
client say what I reported him to have said, he did so in the presence of a
witness willing to swear to that in court. Moreover, I believe my words on the topic of the oversized
shed may be subject to qualified privilege.
Your client must understand that any agreement he may
have made with the Shire of York to keep confidential the circumstances of his
departure from the Shire’s employ will not protect him if he elects to take
this matter to court.
Yours faithfully,
James Plumridge
(Dr)
James Plumridge
If I had chosen to be bloody-minded, I
could have mentioned that Mr X assured me in August of last year, again in the
presence of a witness, that the Shire’s environmental health officer possesses
professional qualifications relevant to his job. To put the matter tactfully, I don’t believe that assurance
reflected reality.
However, Mr X should be comforted to know
that any person trawling the Internet for information about him will find
nothing especially alarming in the columns of this blog.
Some
questions for the Shire
1.
According to Suzie Haslehurst’s
response to my email to CEO Martin (see my previous article, ‘Legal Eagle Flies
Undone’), Mr X resigned of his own accord and not under pressure from the
CEO. However, according to
Gary Hamley, Local Government Minister Templeman’s Chief of Staff, CEO Martin ‘took
appropriate action’.
What action, if any, did the CEO take, and if he did
take action, why might it have been considered ‘appropriate’?
2.
Did Mr X behave as alleged
(i.e. ‘inappropriately’, jeez, that feeble and obfuscatory type of language is
more contagious than measles or the pox) towards female members of Shire staff?
3.
Mr X claims to have resigned
for reasons of ill-health. If he
had not thus offered his resignation, would the CEO have felt obliged to sack him? If not, what might the CEO have
done instead?
4.
It is rumoured that the Shire paid
out the balance of Mr X’s contract.
If he did behave ‘inappropriately’ as alleged, wouldn’t such a payout be
tantamount to rewarding improper behaviour?
5.
If a male member of the public
walked into the Shire office one sultry afternoon and behaved towards female
staff as Mr X is alleged to have done, would the Shire react as kindly as it
appears to have done with regard to Mr X?
Or is there one rule for local government employees and another for
everybody else?
6.
Is it the case that the Shire
permitted Mr X to continue for several weeks, after ceasing to work for the
Shire, to drive a Shire vehicle and live in Shire accommodation? If so, why?
7.
To what extent, if any, was
Shire President Wallace informed of Mr X’s alleged ‘inappropriate’ behaviour
towards female staff? If he was so
informed, did he share that information with his fellow councillors, and if he
didn’t, why not?
8.
Is it the case that at least
one oversized shed application was approved last year or earlier under
delegated authority with a view to avoiding public scrutiny and possible
adverse comment?
It appears that CEO Martin and Shire
President Wallace are less than happy about what is being written on this and David
Taylor’s blog. I remind them
and their fellow mugwumps that they are spending our money, not their own. As I’ve argued in the past, no
expenditure of public money unrelated to national security or public safety
should be withheld from public scrutiny.
Considerations of privacy or confidentiality should have no role to play
in the public service, which public money keeps afloat.
If the Shire were committed, as clearly it
is not, to open, honest and accountable government, it would have nothing to
fear from the blogs.
