Geoffrey Rush defamation trial: Eryn Jean Norvill 'utterly honest' witness, court told
Eryn Jean Norvill was an “utterly honest” and “brave” witness who had nothing to gain from giving evidence against the actor Geoffrey Rush except “stress and anxiety”, a court has heard.
After two and a half weeks, closing submissions in the high-profile defamation trial between Rush and the Daily Telegraph began on Wednesday.
The newspaper’s barrister, Tom Blackburn SC, told the court Norvill – the actor whose complaint about Rush is at the centre of the case – had been an honest witness who had “desperately, desperately wanted to stay out of the limelight”.
But federal court judge Michael Wigney has questioned the relevance of a text message Rush sent to Norvill in which he told her he was thinking about her “more than is socially appropriate”.
Blackburn said the text message had been “an invitation”. Rush, he said, had been “putting it out there to see if he got a response”.
But Wigney was sceptical of the relevance of the text.
“An invitation to do what?” he asked Blackburn. “Are you seriously suggesting he’s expecting to have some sort of affair with her? It just seems bizarre.
“I have to confess I struggle to see the sinister aspect of this. Maybe it’s just me ... It’s not as if he says ‘Do you want to meet at a cafe tomorrow night?’ or some other rendezvous.”
Rush is suing the Telegraph over a series of articles published in November and December in 2017 alleging he had behaved inappropriately towards Norvill during a 2015 production of Shakespeare’s King Lear.
One front-page story was headlined “King Leer”, and featured a portrait of Rush in character.
Blackburn told Wigney that the case came down to “a contest between the evidence of Mr Rush and Ms Norvill”.
Wigney would have to “make a choice” about who he believed.
Over two days last week Norvill told the court that Rush had “deliberately” touched her breast during a 2015 production of King Lear, saying she felt “trapped” and “frightened” by the Oscar winner’s behaviour.
She told the court that during rehearsals for the play Rush made “groping” and “hour-glass” gestures towards her, and that on two occasions before going on stage Rush had put his hand underneath her shirt “up to the line of her jeans” and “very softly and lightly” tracing the skin above the waistband.
Rush vigorously denied the allegations when the articles were published and again during the trial. He said he had never engaged in inappropriate behaviour towards her.
During Norvill’s cross-examination Rush’s senior counsel, Bruce McClintock SC, accused her of telling “a whole pack of disgusting lies” about Rush to “blacken and smear” his reputation.
But Blackburn told the court Norvill had no reason to make up the allegations. “[There is] absolutely nothing in these proceedings for Ms Norvill except stress and anxiety, exacerbated by the way Mr McClintock cross-examined her and the accusations he made,” Blackburn said.
Norvill had made her initial complaint to the Sydney Theatre Company confidentially, had asked for Rush not to be made aware of the complaint, and had not spoken to the Telegraph before the articles were published.
“None of that is the conduct or actions of somebody who has some sort of motive to seek publicity or anything else,” he said.
“This is significant, because although my learned friend [made] a florid, extravagant accusation that her evidence was, quote, ‘a pack of disgusting lies’, [he] never went on to put to her … any reason why she should tell a pack of disgusting lies about Mr Rush.
“[It was] very brave of her to give evidence. There was nothing in it for her, absolutely nothing [except] to potentially offend senior members of Australia’s theatre establishment when she’s a young actor making her way in Australian theatre.”
The play’s director and two co-stars, Robyn Nevin and Helen Buday, gave evidence that they had not witnessed Rush engaging in inappropriate conduct during the production.
In his closing, Blackburn paid particular attention to Nevin’s evidence, and her explanation of text messages she had sent to Norvill immediately after the articles were published.
The court previously heard evidence that Nevin sent a text to Norvill asking about her wellbeing on 1 December, shortly after the first Telegraph article had been published.
“Oh dear girl are you OK? … It’s nasty. I hope you’ll be protected. I’m sure you will be,” the text read.
Blackburn said Nevin’s account of saying how she knew the complainant was Norvill despite her not being named in the articles “doesn’t make sense”.
“Nowhere in that text exchange did Ms Nevin say to Ms Norvill: ‘Why are you making up this [about] one of my very best and closest friends, a man on impeccable integrity and reputation?’ ... It just doesn’t make sense,” he said.