Luke Sayers and wife Cate battle in court over ‘dick pic’ scandal trial

Former Carlton boss Luke Sayers is seeking to have his court battle with estranged wife Cate moved to the family court, arguing it’s the best place for the “entire controversy”.

The former Carlton president and his partner have been locked in a legal battle over the intimate image posted to X in January.

Mr Sayers has denied responsibility for the post that tagged a major Carlton sponsor with a picture of his penis last January, saying he was in the shower at the time.

He has previously alleged that a day after the incident, Mrs Sayers said words to the effect of “let’s see how you get out of this one”.

Mrs Sayers denies posting the picture, claiming she wasn’t staying in the same hotel as her husband at the time it was posted.

The case was called in Victoria’s Supreme Court on Monday, as Mr Sayers is seeking to have it moved to the family court division of the Federal Court — a move that would impact media coverage of the trial due to legal restrictions.

He did not attend in person, while Mrs Sayers was present in court wearing an eggplant-coloured suit.

Award-winning actor Rachel Griffiths also attended the court hearing and left alongside Mrs Sayers.

Barrister Matthew Collins KC for Mr Sayers told the court “the publication of the X post is a defamatory action against him [Mr Sayers]” and that “in the days following the publication of the post, Mr Sayers was the subject of significant media attention”.

The AFL conducted an inquiry into the publication of the X post which ultimately cleared Mr Sayers of any wrongdoing.

She also claimed a statutory declaration made during an investigation into the X post defamed her and the court was told on Monday that damage caused was “Australia-wide”.

The photo was deleted from social media 15 minutes after it appeared.

Monday’s proceedings come after Ms Sayers issued subpoenas for both Carlton football club and the AFL, the Herald Sun revealed last week.

Supreme Court justice Andrew Watson temporarily closed the court on Monday morning while the barristers for Mr and Mrs Sayers argue if the trial can continue in open court.

Judge Watson had previously ordered the live stream be turned off after Mr Collins argued the increased social media and public attention of the case could be a complicating factor.

“We don’t want to exclude the media from being able to report,” he said.

However he did express concern for members of the public who may not be familiar with the law.

The court reopened about an hour later as barristers Michael Collins KC and Sue Chrysanthou SC continued to debate whether the trial should be heard in the Supreme Court.

Judge Watson assured Mr Sayers’ team that the Court “regularly deals with matters of a sensitive nature”.

But Mr Collins argued that orders to close the court could result in the media litigating against the court to have the orders lifted, suggesting these issues would “fall away” if the matter was transferred to the Family Court where there are restrictions on media reporting.

“That’s the only court that could hear and determine the entire controversy,” he said.

However, Ms Chrysanthou rebutted claims that these proceedings had caused significant media attention for their client, stating the publicity stated with the posting of the dick pic.

“That publicity started well before these proceedings did,” she said.

Mr Collins said while Mrs Sayers felt that defamation proceedings conducted secretly would not allow her to be publicly vindicated, he argued vindication is achieved by a verdict.

He also told the court most defamation cases in recent years have been heard in the Federal Court.

Ms Chrysanthou said her client wished to apply for a trial by jury, telling the court that whether or not a publication has been defamatory has always been a jury question.

“[Mrs Sayers] has chosen this court as she was entitled to do,” Ms Chrysanthou said.

Ms Chrysanthou said when Mr Sayers was asked by the AFL about an explicit image being posted to his X account “he blamed my client for it”.

“My client found out from the media that it was being circulated that she was responsible and what she was told was that Mr Sayers was saying she was responsible,” she said.

She also said Mr Sayers’ allegations about Mrs Sayers were false, particularly surrounding her mental health.

“The false imputation is that my client has been diagnosed with bi polar and … regularly refuses to take her medication,” she said.

Ms Chrysanthou also indicated they would be open to an offer, as she reminded the defence “a party can make offers at any time in any terms that they wish”.

Judge Watson reserved his decision, saying he would “notify the parties in due course”.