Lloyd Rayney

In 2003, Rayney sued art critic Robert Hughes for allegedly calling him a "curry muncher" in the course of a trial at which Rayney was a Crown prosecutor. The action was settled out of court.[8]

In March 2017, the Supreme Court began hearing Rayney's claim against the state for compensation over a WA Police media conference in September 2007, during which a senior officer called him "the prime and only suspect" in the death of his wife.[9] Judge John Chaney had ordered that the case be heard by a judge sitting alone.[10]

Witnesses at the defamation hearing included close relatives of the murder victim who shared a belief that Rayney was the killer. Rayney's counsel "accused them of bias and feeding gossip to the police."[11]

In a judgment handed down on 15 December 2017, Judge Chaney ruled that the officer's words "in their entirety, bore the imputation that the plaintiff murdered his wife" and awarded preliminary damages of $600,000 "for the harm to his reputation, personal hurt and distress caused."[12] On 20 December, the judge awarded additional sums for economic losses and interest, bringing the total award to $2,623,416--"almost four times as large as the previous biggest defamation award in W.A."[13] The judgment was highly critical of the police, finding that senior officers involved in the investigation into Ms Rayney's murder "had formed a prejudicial view" of Mr Rayney and had "taken the approach of assessing [his] actions and words against an assumption of guilt".[14]

The West Australian estimated that amounts owing to lawyers engaged in the contest would swell the state's total payout to $13 million. Notwithstanding his earlier reported offer to represent the state on a "pro bono" basis,[9] Terrence Tobin QC, was said to be charging $3.3 million and Rayney's legal team more than $2 million for the trial, in addition to "a further $5 million in other legal fees in the years leading up to the defamation trial".[15]

In January 2018, Rayney lodged an appeal against the judgment, seeking an increase in the damages component of the awarded compensation, which covered only three years' loss of income—from when the defamation was uttered, to when he was charged with his wife's murder in December 2010. Rayney had argued that the damage to his career extended over 10 years, warranting compensation of $11 million.[16]