The FHA Blog

The defendants closed their evidence this morning, 6 July, ten minutes after the Court day began, meaning the evidentiary phase in biologist Jeremy Griffith and mountaineer Tim Macartney-Snape’s trial in relation to a defamatory 1995 Four Corners broadcast is now complete.

Indications from counsel for the defendants during the course of the trial that the program’s guest reporter, Reverend David Millikan, or the program’s executive producer, Ian Carroll, might be called to the witness box did not come to pass.

There were no witnesses called yesterday and the Court spent most of the day listening to audio recordings of conversations between Reverend Millikan, Mr Griffith and others which occurred in late January and February 1995, several months before the Four Corners program went to air in April that year.

After lunch yesterday, the defendants tendered a bundle of documents, most of which were admitted into evidence without objection or limitation.

After 30 hearing days, the evidence in the case is now closed. Justice David Kirby set a timetable for the filing of written submissions through August and September and the taking of oral submissions in December. Judgment in the matter is not expected until next year.

Professor Maciej Henneberg told the Supreme Court today that he rejected the teleological, or purpose driven, approach to science taken by biologist Jeremy Griffith and the renowned paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

Appearing for the defendants in Mr Griffith and mountaineer Tim Macartney-Snape’s defamation action against the ABC, the biological anthropologist from the University of Adelaide was giving opinion evidence pertaining to the scientific standard of Mr Griffith’s work, as expressed in his books Free: The End Of The Human Condition (1988) and Beyond The Human Condition (1991).

In his evidence-in-chief, Professor Henneberg took the opportunity to elaborate on various criticisms contained in his written report and identified a number of what he described as “untestable hypotheses” in Mr Griffith’s work.

During cross-examination, the plaintiffs’ counsel, Kieran Smark, directed the professor’s attention to various references in Beyond about holism and integrative meaning.

“You understood, didn’t you, that central to Mr Griffith’s approach was that not merely human nature but even the development of matter was a reflection of an underlying purpose in the universe?” he asked.

“Well, I understand this but I strongly disagree with it as a scientist”, said Professor Henneberg.

Mr Smark then mentioned a quote cited in Beyond from Teilhard de Chardin’s defining work, The Phenomenon of Man (1959):

“I can see a direction and a line of progress for life, a line and a direction which are in fact so well marked that I am convinced their reality will be universally admitted by the science of tomorrow.”

But Professor Henneberg remained unmoved. “Teleological explanation of nature is incompatible with the scientific method”, he insisted.

Shortly after, Mr Smark put to the anthropologist whether he accepted that the study of living great apes provided a fertile field for understanding human nature.

“I am sorry to give an ambiguous answer, but I don’t think I do. I can’t say categorically, no. That was one of the reasons I never involved myself in research on living primates”, the professor said.

“Would you accept, Professor Henneberg, it would be fair to describe you as a scientist committed to a hard mechanistic view of science?” asked Mr Smark.

“No, I don’t”, he replied.

“I am suggesting to you that your view of the scientific process is at fairly much one end of a spectrum in relation to how one identifies what is and is not science, do you accept that?” pressed Mr Smark.

“Well, that’s your opinion. I can’t really self assess”, he responded.

After the luncheon adjournment, the defendants called James Moule, the deputy-principal of Concord High School at the time Mr Macartney-Snape gave a school speech night address in March 1995, footage of which was included in the defamatory Four Corners broadcast.

Mr Moule said it was his understanding that Gabi Hollows had originally been booked for the occasion and that she had recommended the mountaineer as a suitable alternative to take her place when she was unable to attend. Mr Moule went on to give the Court his recollection of Mr Macartney-Snape’s speech night address.

“And you can recall amongst the things Mr Macartney-Snape mentioned, that he referred to the ideas of Jeremy Griffith?” asked Mr Smark.

“Yes, but it was only a passing mention,” said Mr Moule.

“And that was not something that particularly concerned you, was it?”

“No”, he replied.

Earlier in the day, Justice David Kirby gave judgement for the defendants on a claim in injurious falsehood brought by Mr Griffith concerning payments of almost $23,000 made to Jackson Wells Communications, public relations consultants first retained in early April 1995, prior to the defamatory Four Corners broadcast going to air.

The key issue in Justice Kirby’s judgement concerned the capacity in which Jackson Wells Communications was retained. Counsel for the plaintiffs had contended that both Mr Griffith and the Foundation for Humanity’s Adulthood held the retainer and during the course of the trial had tendered a number of documents in support of that position.

However, following submissions from the defendants, the Court formed the view the Jackson Wells retainer was held by the Foundation alone and that Mr Griffith had been involved in his capacity as a director of the Foundation, rather than his personal capacity, notwithstanding that Mr Griffith had paid the invoices from his own account. On that basis, Justice Kirby said the injurious falsehood claim must fail.

Evidence from the defendants continues tomorrow in the Supreme Court.

Counsel for the plaintiffs, Kieran Smark, today concluded a three day cross-examination of Four Corners’ producer Deborah Masters in biologist Jeremy Griffith and mountaineer Tim Macartney-Snape’s defamation trial against the ABC.

The Court was played two extracts of film footage taken on 8 February 1995 during a walk in the Snowy Mountains, more than two months before the defamatory ABC-TV Four Corners broadcast went to air.

In the first extract, guest reporter Reverend David Millikan was shown explaining his religious beliefs to Mr Griffith:

Millikan:

I’m deeply committed, I have been since I was about 15 or 16 I guess, to a relationship with God which has been, I guess, one of the most fulfilling dimensions in my life. It’s given me a sense of purpose and security and a sense of understanding of myself and all that. Now you talk about God, but I see what you’re saying as being a sort of classic statement of the isolated and autonomous individual and there is no place within your system for a transcendent God.

Griffith:

What do you mean by transcendent?

Millikan:

The God that is beyond this world. You see, I mean, Christianity says that God is both in the world and God is separate from the world because the world owes its origin to God. Now what place is there [for a transcendent God] within what you’re saying?

In the second film extract, the philosophical discussion between the reverend and the biologist continued:

Millikan:

… you see, we have two different really sort of perceptions about the nature of God because, see when I talked about God as transcendent, that seems to me to be essential, I mean I don’t know of any other way to relate to God.

Under cross-examination, Ms Masters acknowledged that Reverend Millikan was “a man whose fundamental Christian belief was unquestionable”. She also agreed that by the time of the Snowy Mountains exchange her view was that Reverend Millikan’s belief in a transcendent God was an aspect that he found completely lacking in Mr Griffith’s ideas.

However, when Mr Smark put it to her, Ms Masters strenuously denied she was aware that Reverend Millikan’s permanent Christian beliefs were significantly shaping the course of the Four Corners program by the time it went to air.

Nonetheless, she later conceded that the program was “laced with religious language and imagery”. Ms Masters admitted that while Mr Macartney-Snape was described in the introduction to the program as “the prophet’s first disciple”, she had never heard Mr Macartney-Snape describe himself in those terms.

After Ms Masters was excused, the plaintiffs called expert witness Paul Lom, a Melbourne-based chartered accountant. Mr Lom, who had filed two reports on the economic loss claimed by Mr Macartney-Snape, was cross-examined by counsel for the defendants, John Sheahan SC, for the balance of the afternoon.

The case continues tomorrow when the defendants are expected to call Professor Maciej Henneberg, a biological anthropologist at the University of Adelaide, and chartered accountant Paul Vincent.

ABC producer Deborah Masters spent her third day in the witness box defending Four Corners’ portrayal of eminent Australian mountaineer Tim Macartney-Snape and biologist Jeremy Griffith as their defamation trial against the national broadcaster continued.

One of the three defamatory imputations held to arise from the 1995 ABC-TV broadcast was that Mr Macartney-Snape abuses his position of influence, derived from his reputation as a mountaineer, to recruit students at schools for Mr Griffith.

Under cross-examination by Kieran Smark, Ms Masters conceded she was “at least a little troubled” that Four Corners did not disclose to Mr Macartney-Snape allegations about how he promoted Mr Griffith’s ideas made by Howard Whelan before they went to air in the program.

“And one of the reasons why you were at least a little troubled is that you wondered if as a matter of fairness it mightn’t be appropriate in the circumstances to raise at least with Mr Macartney-Snape or some other person with the Foundation whether or not the allegations being made by Mr Whelan was a matter to which they wished to respond specifically?” asked Mr Smark.

“Yes, that’s right”, she responded.

Ms Masters said that after seeking advice from Four Corners’ executive producer Ian Carroll, it was decided the program’s guest reporter, Reverend David Millikan, could canvass Mr Whelan’s allegations with Mr Griffith in the final interview. She agreed it was “a matter of regret” when that did not come to pass.

Ms Masters also described how she had sought to have Mr Macartney-Snape stay back after a school speech to do a further interview, which did not proceed following a debate she had with Reverend Millikan.

“And as it happened, a decision was made and may we take it from your demeanour today it is one that even now you wish had been resolved in a different direction?” asked Mr Smark.

“Well yes, I suppose I do”, she replied.

Later in the day, the Court was shown a compilation of 17 film extracts that were not included in the final Four Corners broadcast. Some of the extracts contained comments and discussion about Mr Griffith’s work from scientists interviewed by Reverend Millikan, such as:

“I initially am attracted to the underlying concept of it which is that there is a fundamental nexus between the instinctive self, through our evolution, the instinctive human being and the intellectual self. I’d never thought of that until I read it in Jeremy’s prose and I think it struck a chord of common sense with me”, said Dr Graham Robertson.

“The book, well, is not without interest as we’ve seen, and in some cases it’s downright intriguing as we’ve seen and that’s what I said”, said Professor Colin Groves.

“I think it’s always very valuable to try to look at behaviours, human behaviours particularly, and to try to gain some understanding of them by looking at our nearest relatives and what little we understand about the fossil record and human evolution”, said Professor Tim Flannery.

Ms Masters agreed she had seen each extract as part of the process of assembling the Four Corners program.

“This was material that, for whatever reason, you decided not to include or you were part of a collaboration that decided not to include in the final Four Corners program, isn’t it?” asked Mr Smark.

“Yes”, she replied.

Cross-examination of Ms Masters continues tomorrow in the Supreme Court.