Performance, Credibility and #MeToo Testimony in Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd

Rush v Nationwide News, a defamation case between Geoffrey Rush and the publishers of the Daily Telegraph, has been credited with exerting a ‘chilling effect’ on the #MeToo moment in Australia. The case presents an opportunity to explore both the influence of the #MeToo moment on testimony and how such testimony is received, interpreted and evaluated through legal institutions and the processes of justice. Through a close textual reading of court transcripts, media reporting and the judgment of Justice Michael Wigney, this article traces connections between the #MeToo moment, the testimony of the alleged victim-survivor, Eryn Jean Norvill and its circulation and reception within and beyond the courtroom. Taking a law and performance theoretical framework, I argue that both chief protagonists engaged in a performative approach to narrative self-construction in the adversarial courtroom–Rush as a theatrical genius, and Norvill as a #MeToo advocate–that profoundly influenced Justice Wigney's assessment of their credibility as witnesses, providing a platform for the judicial destruction of Norvill's credibility and denying her the truth of her own experience as a victim-witness of workplace sexual harassment. Indeed, the highly performative nature of this case and its connection to the assessment of witness credibility exposes the influence of a range of sexual harassment myths within Justice Wigney's judgment. In this way, Rush v Nationwide News starkly exposes the ongoing epistemic priority of masculine normativity within adversarial justice, veiled within the cloak of neutrality, objectivity and reason that frames the assessment of witness credibility

Archaeology · Credibility · Gold rush · Political science · Seismology · History · Law · Legal principles and applications · Geology

• The Violence of Judgment

  Open Access•Sarah Ailwood•Legalities•2025

  Incluir item