Peter Bartlett on dealing with journalists and editors … Journey to the big smoke from country Victoria … Hopeless at maths … The defamation lottery … Ben Roberts-Smith and all the other giant cases … Privacy, the new game in town … Suppression orders … Last meal

Describe yourself in three words.

Focused, lateral thinking.

What has been going on since your became Partner Emeritus at MinterEllison?

Enjoying life with the family, without 150 emails a day, constant phone calls and those timesheets. Focused on building the reputation of my successors and mentoring others. Spending quite a lot of time on my International Bar Association (IBA) roles and also preparing for the November 2025 Toronto IBA Annual Conference.

Aren’t you missing all the fun – the roar of the greasepaint, the smell of the crowd?

It is certainly different. My role at MinterEllison was full on. My phone was never turned off. Urgent, challenging issues arose constantly. At the same time I had many external roles that took a lot of time.

Who has been the most influential person in your life?

That is impossible to say. So many people have been very influential. This started with my parents. A hard working couple in a small country town, Warburton in the upper Yarra Valley in Victoria.

My French teacher who visited me and my parents when I failed Year 9 to say that if I didn’t pull my finger out, I would be sweeping the streets of Warburton the rest of my life.

Michael Winneke from a blue blood legal family in Melbourne. He gave me Articles and ensured I was made a partner as a first year lawyer. He had the best personality I have ever met.

Tony Smith, an intellectually brilliant media lawyer. I took over the practice at the firm when Tony was elevated to the bench.

I have worked with such impressive lawyers in the IBA. All leaders in their field.

Why did you want to become a lawyer?

I went right through school in a little country town. I had never met a lawyer. An aunt took the view that the only two jobs were medicine and law. My brother went on to be recognised as one of Australia’s leading knee surgeons. I was pretty hopeless at Maths and Science so when my marks in Year 12 allowed me to get into law, I ticked that box.

How did you fall into the arms of media clients?

Pure luck. My brother and father were drawn to play golf with Michael Winneke in the Flinders Easter tournament. Michael suggested that I come into the office for a coffee the following week. He was a partner in the firm of Gillott Moir and Winneke (which joined with two other firms to form MinterEllison in 1987). Gillotts had acted for The Age since 1863. From my first year I assisted with pre-publication advice. The workload increased year after year.

What sort of problems did you encounter when dealing with journalists?

When I started work the relationship between journalists and the lawyers was them and us. They told the lawyers the minimum to get the article approved for publication. This led to a number of disasters. Starting with David Wilson, then the impressive head investigative reporter for The Age, I was able to develop a level of trust between us. Journos learned that to withhold important material from the lawyer would be to their detriment.

To what extent have you been an emotional support person for distressed journalists?

Journalists put a huge effort into investigating a story and getting it into a form that it can be approved by editors and be published. Sometimes, but rarely, the story will never see the light of day.

Journalists like all others have emotional highs and lows from time to time. Due to the timing of the interaction I have with them either prior to publication, responding to aggressive lawyers’ letters, or court cases, I have witnessed and been part of these periods. I have assisted where I can. That said I have acted naturally and never actually thought I was giving emotional support.

What has been your most important case?

Most readers would assume that it was the Ben Roberts-Smith case. Obviously in that case we had unlimited resources thrown at us. The trial went for 110 days. I personally swore over 40 affidavits and was cross-examined twice. We waited so long to receive that comprehensive win. Then the appeal and later an application making unwarranted claims and the dismissal of the special leave application. A huge win due to quality reporters, brave SAS soldiers and others, and a great legal team.

But there were so many other important cases. The enquiry into the death of Donald Mackay (acting for his widow) taking on Abe Saffron, Syd Fischer, Chris Gayle, Kerry Packer, Lionel Murphy, Al Grassby, Ricky Renzela, Hamilton Byrne, Mark Alfred Clarkson, the then President of Indonesia (who sought damages of US$1 billion from Fairfax Media), Geoff Clarke, alleged mafia leaders and others. Saving Qantas and World Airlines billions of dollars in the deep vein thrombosis trial and appeal. Defeating Ansett in the days before the Sydney 2000 Olympics. Ansett tried to prevent Qantas publishing Olympic related advertisements.

Your most disappointing case

There have been a number of disappointing cases. There have been many cases that I have recommended settlements on a commercial basis, some against rather undeserving plaintiffs. It is always a difficult position to be in. However the lawyer has a duty to the client to advise where the potential risks are. If the publisher can resolve the dispute without significant egg on its face, sometimes it makes sense. Journalists rarely recognise this though. Many years ago I was surprised that Syd Fischer, a leading Sydney yachting identity, succeeded in his defamation case. I took the view that defamation trials were a lottery. For many years I did not allow any of my cases to go near a trial.

Your most challenging case

Every case is challenging. The challenges are always different. Due to the work I have done and the material published, the complaints received tend to come from cashed up, thin-skinned individuals, supported by capable aggressive lawyers.

Some that come to mind are the Australian Federal Police raid against David Wilson and the Victoria Police raid against Nick McKenzie and others; the ‘teenage terrorist’ disaster when all Fairfax publications published a photo on page one of a young guy with the heading ‘Teenage Terrorist’. Wrong guy. The Unaoil threats; the Securency-related attempts to disclose sources; the challenges pre- and post-publication arising from the Costigan Royal Commission; The Age Tapes; the ANZUS Papers (the Commonwealth v Fairfax); Morgan Changarei (Zimbabwe); alleged mafia figures and others.

Why are there fewer defamation trials than 10 years ago? Is it because the current Defamation Act is more media-friendly?

In my view the number of defamation trials has dropped because potential plaintiffs have seen that the media may choose to fight what they perceive as unwarranted actions. Those potential plaintiffs have seen that even those that have huge financial resources available to them such as Ben Roberts-Smith and Al Muderis, can fail. They can see the reputational damage that can come out during a trial and the huge cost consequences if they fail.

The Australian Defamation Act is not media-friendly. You need to look to the United States to see a media-friendly First Amendment. That said, the new public interest defence may make a significant and long overdue improvement. The recent decision of Abraham J. is welcome. Hopefully the judiciary will accept that interpretation of the public interest defence and not read the defence down to meaningless, as they did with the qualified privilege defence.

Has an editor ever published a story against your advice?

While no editor has published against my advice, I have had many difficult debates over stories. The differences of opinion often starts with the reporter or the news desk. If they don’t like the advice they are likely to escalate it to an editorial executive. If we still do not agree, a call can come from the editor. Often the debates can come to a better wording, a compromise that I can live with. However, editors know that if I reached a position and could not go further, that was it.

The relationship was based on mutual respect. We aimed for the same thing. To get the strongest possible material published, but we looked at it from different angles. Usually those angles meet in a mutually agreed position.

Do you expect actions in privacy to be the main game in reputational harm litigation?

Media lawyers are all buzzing about the potential impact of the new privacy laws. There is a pretty strong media exemption. Clearly claimant lawyers will be looking at all opportunities. Everyone was ready for a rush of new claims. Personally I do not see that these privacy actions will have a huge impact. As I have said many times in the past, a privacy statute will simply seek to crack a nut with a sledgehammer.

Even though there are media exemptions for the statutory tort of privacy, what dangers do you see for the media?

Furious cashed-up litigants supported by aggressive lawyers and with a largely untested new pro-plaintiff law is always a danger for the media. Added to that is the fact that the rivers of gold from advertising has largely dried up and the media does not have a deep pocket to fight unlimited cases.

The issue will be whether whatever was published was “journalistic material”, that it has “the character of news, current affairs or a documentary” where the publication was by a mainstream media outlet, that should not be too difficult for the media to prove.

Have you ever acted for a client suing the media?

MinterEllison and its earlier firms have acted for the Melbourne Age since 1863. Our focus has always been freedom of speech and the public’s right to know. My view is that you cannot act for both the media and at the same time against it.

Did you watch ‘The Hack’, the true crime series currently streaming in Australia? What can you say about a ruthless media organisation that abuses its power?

I have not watched The Hack.

The media can destroy individuals, companies and associations’ reputations in a simple headline.

It is often very difficult to find the evidence strong enough to publish, even though journalists are convinced the subject of the investigation is a crook or involved in significant wrongdoing. It is very very frustrating.

I have seen it many times. I have often said to a journo or editor that we need more evidence to stand the story up and defend it in court.

All of that said, the journalist recognises that they are bound by the strict ethical rules. The MEAA Rules leave no room for doubt.

In my experience journalists in this country follow those rules.

I should add that I have a hard copy of the last ever issue of News of the World. After 168 years, Edition 8,674. The first page headline – “Thank You & Goodbye”.

Victoria wins the prize for court-ordered suppression and non-publication orders. Why is that?

Some years ago Victoria introduced the ‘Open Courts Act’, aimed at reducing the number of suppression orders. Victoria has more such orders than any other State.

The public has a right to know what is going on in our courts. It is a fundamental right which if adhered to, raises respect for the courts and the judiciary.

There are far too many examples of judges making questionable orders and in some cases not giving the media and parties time, or adequate time, to oppose the making of the order.

In my view the judge’s main focus (understandably) is the central role of the judge – a fair trial. Someone then stands up and seeks a non-publication order or to suppress the publication of certain aspects of the case. It is a distraction for the judge. A side issue. The judge is tempted to make a quick decision to remove that issue. Sometimes such orders are made without adequate consideration and without having the opportunity of hearing opposing arguments.

What are you currently reading?

I tend to like spy-type novels. I am presently reading ‘Damascus Station’ by David McCloskey.

If you were sentenced to death, what would you like for your last meal?

Well that is something I have never previously thought about. I would hope that I am never placed in that position.

However, I do like garlic prawns, a good rare steak (with English mustard) and vegetables.

If you shut your eyes and think of the word ‘law’, what comes to mind?

I actually believe the world is facing very troubling times. The media and journalists are facing increasing challenges, even to their personal safety. The independence of the legal profession and the judiciary is being challenged in many countries. Some of those challenges come from unlikely sources. Lawyers have a duty to defend the rule of law. If we do not stand up we potentially face a very dark future.

Mark Ellis, Executive Director of the International Bar Association, recently concluded his speech to the American Society of International Law with these words: “Let us be the generation that actively renewed democratic principles, that rejected the easy comfort of exclusion and division, and that insisted a country’s greatness lies not in the easy comfort of populist nationalism, but in the enduring strength of the rule of law.”