15 October 2018 — 5:52pm
Serge Benhayon (centre)
Former Sydney tennis coach turned
self-styled spiritual healer Serge Benhayon has suffered a spectacular loss in
his Supreme Court defamation case against a former client, after a four-person
jury found it was true to say he led a "socially harmful cult",
"intentionally indecently touched" clients and made "bogus
healing claims".
Serge Benhayon, 54, sued
acupuncturist and former client Esther Rockett for defamation over a series of
blog posts and tweets starting in November 2014, which he says portrayed him as
"dishonest", a "charlatan who makes fraudulent medical
claims", and the leader of a "socially harmful cult".
Mr Benhayon, a former bankrupt who operates the lucrative business
Universal Medicine from his home near Lismore in the NSW Northern Rivers
region, described himself in court as a "teacher" and
"practitioner" whose healing techniques included "esoteric
breast massage", which is taught by him but performed exclusively by
women.
During his stint in the witness box, Mr Benhayon
also said he "had an understanding" that in one of his many past lives he was Leonardo da Vinci.
He was flanked in court by numerous supporters,
including family members and associates who kept a watchful eye on media
coverage of the case, but numbers dwindled to a handful of stalwarts as the
trial dragged on. Mr Benhayon himself did not attend every day of the trial and
he was not in court on Monday when the verdict was delivered.
Ms Rockett had
accused Mr Benhayon of performing a "sleazy ovarian reading" on her
during a treatment session that involved inappropriate touching through her
clothing.
The jury found Ms Rockett had
established a defence of substantial truth to the bulk of the defamatory
meanings pleaded by Mr Benhayon, including that he "intentionally
indecently touched" her and a number of other clients during treatment
sessions and was "the leader of a socially harmful cult".
They found the publications did not convey that
he was a "sexual predator who has preyed on a number of clients", so
a substantive defence to that meaning was not required.
However, the jury found it was also substantially true to
suggest, as Ms Rockett claimed, that there were "reasonable grounds to
believe" Mr Benhayon intentionally sexually preyed upon her and other
clients during treatment sessions.
They also found it was true to say Mr Benhayon was the leader of
Universal Medicine, "a group which to his knowledge makes false claims
about healing that causes harm to others", and he had an "indecent
interest in young girls as young as ten whom he causes to stay at his house
unaccompanied".
Ms Rockett said “the jury has validated my criticisms of this
cult and its leader" and the jury had "made the decision I had hoped
for".
The case was highly complex and
hard-fought, with Mr Benhayon claiming the 22 publications conveyed a total of
60 defamatory imputations about him.
In a multi-pronged legal defence, Ms Rockett's lawyers said the
imputations were either not conveyed by the publications, or a defence of
truth, honest opinion or qualified privilege was available.
The four-person jury was given the unenviable task of deciding
whether the publications in fact conveyed the alleged imputations and, if so,
whether Ms Rockett had established a defence. To complete that task, the jury
had to provide a yes or no answer to more than 200 questions. Their
deliberations took six-and-a-half days.
Ms Rockett, who is bankrupt, was unable to fund her legal
defence but was represented in court by Sydney barristers Tom Molomby, SC, and Louise
Goodchild.
In his closing address to the jury, Mr Molomby
said Mr Benhayon was “just a conman from Goonellabah” and was “not Mona
Lisa anymore" but "Mona Liar”.
Esther Rockett
The jury found a handful of
defamatory meanings were not defensible on the basis of truth or honest
opinion, including that Mr Benhayon was "delusional" and had
allegedly "groped the anus and vulva of various women under the guise of
treating them".
But in those cases the jury said a defence of qualified
privilege was available because the publications were reasonable in the
circumstances and she was not "actuated by malice". Supreme Court
Judge Julia Lonergan, who presided over the trial, is now expected to be asked
to decide a remaining legal issue in relation to that defence to determine if
it is established.
Ms Rockett’s solicitor, Stewart O’Connell of O’Brien Solicitors,
said the verdict was a "victory against a Goliath organisation by a woman
who refused to be bullied" and was a "vindication of Ms
Rockett".
The parties return to court on December 7.
No comments:
Post a Comment