Lakaev v McConkey

[2024] TASSC 8

[2024] TASSC 8

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Lakaev v McConkey [2024] TASSC 8
PARTIES:	LAKAEV, Natasha
v
McCONKEY, Carli
FILE NO:	2093/2018
DELIVERED ON:	1 March 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATES:	28, 29 September 2023
3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 30 October
2023
2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, 23, 27 November 2023
7, 8, 11, 12 December 2023
Written and closing addresses 22, 26, 28 February 2024
JUDGMENT OF:	Estcourt J
CATCHWORDS:

Defamation – Justification – Truth – Substantial truth and contextual truth – Defendant admitted numerous imputations against the plaintiff including that she was a cult leader, had wrongfully indoctrinated people and was a criminal – Defendant pleaded justification pursuant to s 25 of the Defamation Act 2005 – Plaintiff found to be untruthful and her witnesses to be in the main partial and lacking credit – Defendant found to be honest and reliable and her witnesses independent and credible – Defendant's case supported by extensive documentary evidence – All imputations established as substantially true thus attracting a defence of justification – Judgment for the defendant against the plaintiff.

Defamation Act 2005 s 25

Aust Dig Defamation [43.5]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:	D Zeeman
Defendant:	In Person

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:  Butler McIntyre & Butler

Judgment Number:	[2024] TASSC 8
Number of paragraphs:	327

Serial No 8/2024

File No 2093/2018

NATASHA LAKAEV v CARLI McCONKEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT	ESTCOURT J 1 MARCH 2024
The action

1             This is a defamation action brought largely in relation to the contents of a book entitled, The Cult Effect, (the book), released in July 2017. The defendant, Carli McConkey, is the author of the self-published work. It was written as the defendant's first-hand account of the experiences she claims to have had over a period of 13 years in an alleged cult. The cult is said to have been conducted under the auspices of programmes conducted by and on behalf of the plaintiff, under the style of Life Integration Programmes (later Universal Knowledge) and a group known as the Combined PMC Group comprising persons who had completed the program known as Personal Mastery and Metaphysical Counselling. In the book the defendant describes the plaintiff, Natasha Lakaev, as the cult leader.

2             The action relates to specific passages from the book but also to passages from newspaper articles that are reproduced in it (the articles), as well as to published material from other sources, including the defendant's website, an article published by the Let's Talk About Sects podcast on 30 January 2018, the defendant's Twitter account, and her Facebook page (the online publications). The impugned passages of the publications are set out in the statement of claim.

3   The publications in the book that are claimed to contain content defamatory of the plaintiff

are pleaded as follows ("the book passages"):

"5	The Book contains, in its main text, the following publications, of and concerning the plaintiff:
(a) 'Group member would single people out and bring up issues with "weak" or "lazy" members, yelling and screaming at them, sometimes getting physical with them to try and Shift them (from being Stuck) so they would not fail to adhere to the rules again.

This type of behaviour was initiated and encouraged by Natasha who would scream and yell at students over an Issue regularly and set the example for all other group members to follow. A few times during the year, she hit and shoved people to make her point clear. We soon learned, if we hadn't already, that she had a very domineering, aggressive and controlling personality.'

(b) 'Once we have completed the major portion of our PMC assignments, Natasha told us, one night in a meeting, that she had something special in store for us. She explained that, due to us counselling people from all manner of society, we had to be prepared and empathetic with our clients. Therefore, we needed to experience taking drugs.

Natasha proceeded to ask one of her Support Team members to bring our marijuana joints which she said were from reputable sources nearby, whom they had bought from previously. She told those of the group who were predisposed to drug addiction that they could partake if they wanted to, as it was under a controlled environment where the Support Team would be in close vicinity. However, once we commenced smoking the joints, the Support Team joined in, as well as Natasha.'

2   No 8/2024

(c) "'No, Carli!" Natasha screamed. 'Luke manipulated you to transfer those funds to pay his own debts! Don't you know he's a gambler and a thief? You are a fucking idiot, you stupid bitch. You do whatever you want to do, you c**nt.

I was then "In The Shit", as we would come to call it whenever Natasha punished someone for an extended period of time. The only way you came out of The Shit was by climbing your way out of it – by working harder, smarter and beyond the call of duty. This would involve being screamed at daily, and punished with menial tasks like cleaning, whipper-snipping, or office admin, all hours of the day and night, making you feel degraded and worthless.'

(d)	'Natasha would regularly verbally abuse me on the phone from Brisbane, or while she was down at Omaroo. Constantly she would scream at me, calling me a "liar", a "selfish brat", and a "fat, lazy dog". Invariably she would finish with the line, "you are a fucking c**nt".'
(e)	'FRESH ZEN WHOLESALE continued until it became evident that it was no longer financially viable. Natasha then worked on getting Luke institutionalised into a psychiatric facility in Brisbane. I visited Luke at the hospital one day with Natasha, bringing along paperwork that I have been asked to prepare. He looked drugged out and weak, not at all like the strong and vibrant Luke I had once admitted (sic). Natasha asked Luke to sign over his Power of Attorney to her, and she commenced the process of pursuing an Income Protection claim on his behalf. This meant she could collect this money for herself.'
(f)	'Madeline must have been an exceptional lawyer (keeping in mind she believed everything Natasha told her) as the court concluded that the claim was legitimate. Natasha was now collecting three income protection amounts, two in her name, and the other as Power of Attorney for Luke. With Luke safely in the care of the psychiatric hospital, Natasha got back together with Jeremy.'
(g)	'Natasha told Michael to hit and slap me and tell me what a bad person and mother I was. "Mick, you need to whack some sense into Carli. She's an absolute idiot. She has created all of this and you have let her. Take control of your 'wife', Mick. I can't do it all for you!'"
(h)	'Whether Michael wanted to beat me or not, Natasha said that if he didn't do what needed to be done, then the guys would knock some sense into him.'

(i)          'Soon after the incident, Jeremy ran away again, before the contract had been completed. Sometime later Ted took Natasha to court to recover his equipment and recoup a percentage of the contracts they had secured, as he had a 50:50 share in the company and had virtually set up the whole business. Natasha told each of the PMC guys to sign legal documents stating that they had been paid $7,500 each in wages (which they had not) so she could present to the court the argument that there was no money left over from the business for Ted to lay claim to. She also included $20,000 worth of consultancy fees to herself.'

(j) 'Natasha flew up to the course-room in a rage, wooden spoon in hand, followed by all the mothers. She found Sebastian, who was the oldest of the kids in the room at four years old, tucked in bed, and screamed at him: "What have you done?"

Sebastian sat up in shock. "Nothing," he said.

3   No 8/2024

She demanded an explanation of what had just happened. "Stand up!

Did you take off the children's nappies?"

He shook his head and trembled. "No".

Did you smear this poo all over the floor?

He again whimpered "no", his little body shaking.

Natasha started belting into him with the wooden spoon. When it broke, she yelled to Tiffany: "Get another one from the Centre Kitchen!"

Tiffany raced off to the kitchen and came back with a metal spatula. Again, Natasha started smacking him. She then told Tiffany and Kate to start hitting him as well. After they'd both smacked him, Natasha turned to me and shouted: "Carli, he's your child. You spank him! You have to teach him these lessons, not just us. Discipline now, otherwise he's going to be a monster when he grows up.'"

(k)	'In a matter of minutes, with clearer thoughts, and way from the clutches of Natasha and her increasingly paranoid world, I began to realise that she was a cult leader, and I had been part of a cult.'
(l)	'We had been taught by Natasha to smack our children with wooden spoons'.
(m)	'She is a criminal. She has physically assaulted people, psychologically abused people and conned people out of money!'"

4            The two articles appended to the book that are claimed to contain content defamatory of the plaintiff are pleaded as follows ("the article passages"):

"6	The Book also includes by way of annexures, the following publications of and concerning the plaintiff:
(a) An article headed 'In thrall to a cult: how the unwary fall victim to mind control' purportedly published by The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper on 17 October 2010 containing the following publications, of and concerning the Plaintiff:

(i)          'Carli McConkey is not mentally ill. Neither drugs nor alcohol has led her to this point. Instead, in 1996 she joined a New Age personal development group called Universal Knowledge, seeking clarity. Once McConkey converted to its aims, the group's leader, Natasha Lakaev, manipulated her, hit her, took hundreds of thousands of dollars from her, and worked her without pay for up to 22 hours a day, seven days a week.'

(ii)         '"These techniques appear to be for health reasons but they actually have the effect of debilitation," says Whitsett. "They reduce the person's ability to think critically, to reason, and when people are so weak the 'self' is impaired, they are easier to control and manipulate.'"

(iii)        'Whitsett says this "continuous barrage of attacks on the 'self' keeps the person in a continuous state of failure, of low self- esteem, and attached to the cult.'"

(iv)        'Once Lakaev's disciples were hooked, their critical faculties broken down and their outside support cut off, Lakaev

4   No 8/2024

revealed her more extreme theology. McConkey says she claimed to be a reincarnation of Jesus Christ, and one of the 12 members on the Intergalactic Council of the Universe. She came from the "Bird Tribes" from a different dimension and she remembered all her past lives. In one of them she had been Queen of Atlantis. McConkey was told by Lakaev she had been a "lady in waiting" in Atlantis and she felt she was put on earth to serve her.'

(v)         'In December 1999, McConkey began working for Lakaev in the office without wages, and also cleaning and maintaining her properties. She and Michael bought a share in Lakaev's company, Universal Knowledge, for $20,000, believing they were buying equity, securing their future. They received nothing in return. Company documents show $420,000 was raised from investors in this manner, and Lakaev admits none have seen a return.'

(vi)        'McConkey and her husband had more than one period apart as they dealt with the psychological and financial pressures imposed by Lakaev. In the meantime, McConkey says she was psychologically abused and physically assaulted by Lakaev, and was separated from her sons because Lakaev convinced her she was a "human f--- up". Lakaev also once beat McConkey's young son with a wooden spoon, she says'; and

(vii)       'Finally, in January this year, McConkey could handle no more. She picked up her children and drove away into what she believed was certain death at doomsday. "I was exhausted, had been beaten up again and was unable to cope with any more psychological and emotional pressure. I just said to myself, 'I don't care if I die in two years' time, I would prefer to be free and enjoy my children.'" and

(b)

An article headed 'Alleged leader of cult works as psychologist' purportedly published by The Sunday Age newspaper on 17 October 2010 containing the following publications, of and concerning the Plaintiff:

(i)	'A woman accused of leading a cult that has damaged the lives of scores of people is working as a psychologist with vulnerable patients at a community mental health service in Queensland.'
(ii)	'Natasha Lakaev's Universal Knowledge organisation was offering courses until last year that prophesied the world would end in December 2012 and almost everyone except her devotees would die.'; and
(iii)	'A former member of her inner circle, Carli McConkey, has told The Sunday Age that Ms Lakaev was physically violent and psychologically manipulative, and had persuaded her followers that she was the Queen of Atlantis, a reincarnation of Jesus Christ, and one of 12 members of the Intergalactic Council of the Universe.'"

5   The imputations from the book passages and the article passages are pleaded as follows:

"7  The Book Passages and the Article Passages are defamatory of the plaintiff and bore and were understood to bear, in their natural and ordinary meaning that:

5   No 8/2024

(a)	In respect of those referred to at paragraph 5(a), (c) and (d) that the Plaintiff was a bully and had bullied the Defendant;
(b)	In respect of those referred to at paragraphs 5(a), (l) and 6(a)(i), (vi), (vii) and (b)(iii), that the Plaintiff had unlawfully battered the Defendant;
(c)	In respect of those referred to at paragraph 5(m) that the Plaintiff had unlawfully battered other persons;
(d)	In respect of those referred to at paragraph 5(g) and (h) that the Plaintiff had unlawfully incited other persons to batter persons;
(e)	In respect of those referred to at paragraphs 5(e), (f) and (i) and 6(a)(i) and (iv) that the Plaintiff had unlawfully obtained a financial advantage;
(f)	In respect of those referred to at paragraph 5(b), that the Plaintiff had unlawfully used illicit drugs and had encouraged others to do so;
(g)	In respect of those referred to at paragraphs 5(k) and 6(a)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (vi) and (vii) and (b)(i), (ii) and (iii), that the Plaintiff had wrongfully indoctrinated people;
(h)	In respect of those at paragraph 6(a)(i) and (iv) that the Plaintiff had breached Australian industrial legislation;

(i)          In respect of those at paragraph 5(m), that the Plaintiff was a

criminal." As to the impugned online publications the plaintiff pleads as follows:

6

"7A

The defendant has also published and continues to publish the following further materials of and concerning the Plaintiff via the website

(a)	'I lost over 13 years in the destructive cult, Universal Knowledge (formerly known as Life Integration Programmes), run by cult leader Natasha Lakaev (a registered Psychologist with AHPRA, Australia).'
(b)	'Myself and scores of others were abused by Natasha Lakaev, who used mind control to yield power, money and glorification within a high demand group. Cult leaders generally display the traits of a charismatic narcissist, with Antisocial, Borderline and Histrionic Personality Disorders.'
(c)	'A discussion of the Book as: "a gripping account of the brutal impact of spiritual and violent extremism."'
(d)	'What at first appeared professional and promising, became a vehicle for psychological and physical abuse.'

7B

The defendant has also published and continues to publish the following further materials of and concerning the plaintiff via the section of her website entitled "Book Reviews" which is viewable at the URL:

(a) 'I was involved with Lakaev's courses close to two decades ago and was absolutely shocked to learn that this woman went from operating her cult to becoming a registered psychologist in Australia (current) and at some stage was even working for Queensland Health as a government-employed psychologist. Unfathomable and this was despite several media exposes on her, an obviously questionable

6   No 8/2024

online presence and several complaints to the Queensland Psychology Board and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA). This book reveals it all, providing not only in- depth, clear and explanatory description of how this Australian cult operated but in the final chapters also provides insights into how AHPRA and the Queensland Psychology Board allowed Lakaev to continue with her registration as a psychologist despite what has been presented in front of them.'

(b) 'Carli McConkey has shared her journey into a New age cult with honesty and courage. This book will be invaluable in helping others who have been, or find themselves drawn into what appears to be a group offering courses to benefit their lives, often at a vulnerable time in their life.

Trapped for 13 years in a world of abuse and control Carli bravely tells her story of life in Universal Knowledge and her journey to freedom.'

7C	The defendant has also published and continues to publish of and concerning the plaintiff via the section of her website titled "My Story" at the URL:
(a) An article headed "Alleged leader of cult works as a psychologist" purportedly published by The Sunday Age and the Sydney Morning Herald on their websites on 16 October 2010 containing the following publications of and concerning the plaintiff:

(i)          'Carli McConkey, has told The Sunday Age that Ms Lakaev was physically violent and psychologically manipulative, and had persuaded her followers that she was the Queen of Atlantis, a reincarnation of Jesus Christ, and one of 12 members of the Intergalactic Council of the Universe.'

(ii)         'Complaints against her by former acolytes have been investigated once by Queensland's health regulator, but no action taken. The national health regulator will not comment except to say Ms Lakaev ''has current registration and is therefore deemed fit to practise".'

(b)

An article headed "Medium, Carli's Story: Exiting a Cult" purportedly published by the Let's Talk About Sects podcast on 30 January 2018 containing the following publications of and concerning the plaintiff:

(i)	'On top of the financial strain, things also often got physical. When this cult leader was bashing me up, I was feeling like I deserved this.'
(ii)	'My cult leader now as a registered psychologist, threatened that if I did leave, that she would report me to DOCS, Department of Child Safety, and have my children taken away from me 'cos she was going to say that I was an abusive mother and sign off on it as a psychologist.'

7D	The defendant has published and continues to publish the following material of and concerning the plaintiff via her Twitter account at the URL:
(a) 'Please join me in demanding that the Australian Health Practitioner Agency (AHPRA) and the health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) de-register a Clinical Psychologist who is an abusive Cult Leader.'

7   No 8/2024

7E

The Defendant has published the following material concerning the Plaintiff
via her Facebook account which is viewable at the URL:

(a)

'Please support this petition to ask the Australian Health Practitioner Registration Agency (AHPRA) and the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) to re-investigate a Clinical Psychologist who has caused significant harm to vulnerable members of the Australian community.'

(b)

'This psychologist "was the President of the Australian Psychological Society from 2009 to 2011 at the time when my cult leader, Natasha Lakaev was investigated as a registered Psychologist for allegations of abuse and physical assault. No wonder these criminals get away with their crimes when all levels of government and those in power do nothing and let the perpetrators continue to cause further harm to society. Natasha Lakaev is still a registered psychologist."'

7   The imputations from the online publications are pleaded as follows:

"7F  The publications the defendant has made of and concerning the plaintiff as pleaded at paragraphs 7A, 7B, 7C, 7D and 7E hereof are defamatory of the plaintiff and bore and were understood to bear, in their natural and ordinary meaning that:

(a)	In respect of those referred to at paragraph 7A(a), 7B(a), 7C(a)(ii), 7D(a) and 7E(a) that the plaintiff is unfit to practise as a psychologist;
(b)	In respect of those referred to at paragraph 7A(b), 7A(d) and 7B(b) that the plaintiff committed acts of abuse against the defendant;
(c)	In respect of those referred to at 7A(d), 7C(a)(i), 7B(b)(i) and 7E(b) that the plaintiff physically abused the defendant;
(d)	In respect of those referred to at 7A(b) that the plaintiff is likely to suffer from narcissistic personality disorder and borderline personality disorder;
(e)	In respect of those referred to at 7A(c) that the plaintiff is a violent extremist;
(f)	In respect of those referred to at 7C(b)(ii) that the plaintiff misused her position as a psychologist to threaten her; and
(g)	In respect of those referred to at 7E(b) that the plaintiff was guilty of abuse and physical assault of the defendant and that she was guilty of such conduct as to warrant her de-registration as a psychologist."

8 Subject to some typographical errors identified at paragraph 6 of her second further amended defence, the defendant admits the publication of the book passages, the article passages and the online publications, however, by way of defence she pleads justification, pursuant to s 25 of the Defamation Act 2005 (the Act), contextual truth, pursuant to s 26 of the Act, qualified privilege, pursuant to s 30 of the Act, honest opinion, pursuant to s 31 of the Act and qualified privilege at common law.

9             The defendant agrees that the contents of paragraphs 7 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) and 7F (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g), of the amended statement of claim bear the natural and ordinary meanings of the imputations pleaded, however, she denies that the plaintiff has been greatly injured in her personal and professional reputation and by reason of those publications persons are likely to be induced to shun, avoid, ridicule or despise her, as, the defendant says, "the plaintiff's

8   No 8/2024

personal and professional reputation was such that she was already likely to be shunned, avoided,
ridiculed or despised".

10           In her reply to the defendant's pleading, the plaintiff denies that any of the pleaded defences are applicable and says that the publications were motivated by the defendant's malice towards the plaintiff and her desire to bring about revenge upon the plaintiff.

11           Before embarking on the evidence in the plaintiff's case it is convenient to set out the text of the two impugned articles which are republished at the end of the defendant's book, the first of which is, for all practical purposes, a thumbnail sketch of the account of the experiences asserted by the defendant in the body of the book and in her oral evidence at trial.

12           That article was entitled "In thrall to a cult: how the unwary fall victim to mind control", written by journalist Michael Bachelard and published in the Melbourne Sunday Age on 17 October 2010. It reads as follows:

"As she left university to make her way in the world, Carli McConkey suffered all the workaday self-doubts. She believed she was overweight, was unsure of her chosen career and was worried about finding Mr Right. She was disillusioned with Catholicism and craved spiritual fulfilment. She was also bright, popular, academically successful. After she organised the 1995 orientation week at her university, a careers adviser wrote: 'Carli is my idea of an outstanding Australian'.

Thirteen years later, McConkey is broke and exhausted. She has been beaten up and has mistreated others. She has spent years estranged from her parents, neglected her children, misled the courts and has worked as a virtual slave. Fixed in her mind is the fear that in December 2012 the world will come to an end and all but a few of us will die. At 35, she is also sterile, having been persuaded to undergo a tubal ligation in the belief that she was an unfit mother to her three sons.

Carli McConkey is not mentally ill. Neither drugs nor alcohol has led her to this point. Instead, in 1996 she joined a New Age personal development group called Universal Knowledge, seeking clarity. Once McConkey converted to its aims, the group's leader, Natasha Lakaev, manipulated her, hit her, took hundreds of thousands of dollars from her, and worked her without pay for up to 22 hours a day, seven days a week.

McConkey spent the best years of her life in a cult. She only escaped earlier this year.
What's frightening about her story is that this could happen to any of us.

Clinical Professor Doni Whitsett of the University of Southern California has been working with victims of cults and their families for 20 years. Carli's is 'a tragic textbook case', she says. Cults vary in theology and practice, but all employ similar techniques to recruit the unwary. Scientology uses the free personality test to suggest everyone has deficiencies that Scientology can best address; the Australian cult Kenja uses circus classes and the promise of counselling and personal growth; and the commune-based Australian group Jesus People uses the promise of a purer form of Christianity. Natasha Lakaev used a mish-mash of New Age theories and therapies, an end-times philosophy based on environmental disaster, and a powerful personality.

Lakaev vehemently denies all allegations, saying she does not run a cult and that McConkey is unstable. What she ran was 'just a series of workshops', she says. But for well over a decade, a growing number of former acolytes have emerged with identical stories of a high-pressure, abusive organisation.

Most of us find it hard to believe that anybody could allow themselves to be brainwashed in the way McConkey claims. But Whitsett says people do not join cults, they are systematically recruited, often by charismatic narcissists whose need for adulation gives them the power to manipulate others. Their victims are not mentally ill or stupid. They are often of higher than average intelligence, but they have

9   No 8/2024

vulnerabilities that the leader exploits and amplifies using powerful techniques known as 'coercive persuasion' or 'mind control'. And like religious cults, personal development cults target people looking for guidance.

McConkey was 21 when she encountered a recruiter for Universal Knowledge, then known as Life Integration Programmes, at the 1996 Mind Body Spirit Festival in Sydney. 'I was a bit lost . . . and I was definitely searching,' she says. 'I just wanted to have a psychic reading to have a bit of clarity on my direction . . . and [the reader] said basically, 'This course has everything you need to get over your insecurities, to build your self-esteem, get financial freedom, a great relationship' . . . The brochure said over 10,000 people have done the course. It all appeared very legitimate.'

According to Whitsett, McConkey was vulnerable to these suggestions in part simply because she was in her early 20s the transition from adolescence to adulthood. 'When people are 'searching', they are in an existential crisis, looking for answers to the great questions: 'Who am I? What is life all about?' They are . . . willing to suspend their own worldview and their own ideas for another that seems more promising.'

McConkey took her discovery of Lakaev's northern NSW-based group as a metaphysical 'sign'. She immediately signed up to the course, 'The Next Evolutionary Step'.

In person, Lakaev was sexy, powerful, charismatic. She told attendees to keep an open mind, to 'leave your logic at the door', to avoid 'judgmentalism' a technique cults use to silence the internal voice of reason. She introduced the group to a technique called 'accessing' beating a black mat and yelling frustrations at parents, friends, teachers. She told them they needed to cleanse their 'cellular memory' of the impurities of this and past lives, and those of their ancestors. They must live by 'intuition' alone and if they did, they could 'manifest' (or make) things happen in the real world. Wealth, happiness, success, relationships could all be 'manifested' by the truly intuitive or 'super-intelligent'.

To McConkey it was inspiring. And though she had been told that the first course would fix everything, at the end the group was informed that to become fully 'integrated', there were no fewer than 17 other courses, all at considerable expense, to do.

'It's a bait and switch,' says Whitsett. People who believe an organisation to be credible and moderate have little fear of it, and can be drawn in further. Only later are they introduced to its more dangerous (and often more expensive) elements.

Melbourne woman Madeline Hardess, a university student and former private school captain, was lured into the Jesus People in 2004 by a man she met on a dating website. He did not initially mention that the three-bedroom house he lived in was actually a commune of up to 25 people, including two families of five.

He also did not reveal that, for food, they begged compost from grocery stores and ate the less putrid scraps. Nor did he say that the women were often beaten and yelled at. Only after a series of revelations over eight months did the truth sink in. By the time it did, Hardess was engaged and was convinced that people on the outside were corrupt or evil. She wore a headscarf to signify her subservience to the men.

'Through that period you're so excited that you've found this new thing that you don't even question that much,' she said. 'But then . . . it became a lot more intense and you had to quash thoughts . . . I used to be a feminist, but then you get to the point where you're not even allowed to shake men's hands.'

For McConkey, the first Life Integration course convinced her she had dozens of 'issues'. She immediately signed up for two more. At the next course, 'The Final Step', 70 people went to a rural property in a bus with the windows blacked out. They handed over phones, wallets and identification. Their 'self' was being removed, as was any means of escape. For a week they were yelled at, punished, pressured to complete tasks in a short time. In the attempt to 'cleanse' themselves, they were made to go

10   No 8/2024

hungry, and would often only get two hours of sleep a night. They paraded naked in
front of the group, which McConkey found humiliating.

The next course was even more extreme. Called 'Personal Mastery and Metaphysical Counselling', it cost $10,000 and lasted a year. It featured a punishing daily regime including a strict vegan diet, a daily 10-kilometre run and drinking two litres of fruit juice.

'These techniques appear to be for health reasons but they actually have the effect of debilitation,' says Whitsett. 'They reduce the person's ability to think critically, to reason, and when people are so weak the 'self' is impaired, they are easier to control and manipulate.'

McConkey recalls seeing visions of 'spirits' what Whitsett says were probably hallucinations or 'waking dreams' caused by lack of sleep. Lakaev disputes these details, saying the vegan diet was only for a short time. One year's program, she admits, became 'quite extreme' but she had tried to 'settle it down'.

Always a conscientious student, McConkey was desperate to succeed. But Lakaev's comments to her and others were 90 per cent negative, convincing them they needed to work harder.

Adrian Norman, a former member of Sydney cult Kenja, said an apparently random reward-punishment system kept him on edge for years. 'You were built up as wonderful . . . and then a week or two later you are the worst person in the world and disgusting and smelly and no one would ever want to be with you. It's like couples in abusive relationships you go into a state of hyper-awareness and you can't think critically because you don't know if you're going to be attacked.'

Whitsett says this 'continuous barrage of attacks on the 'self' keeps the person in a continuous state of failure, of low self-esteem, and attached to the cult'. 'They want to improve, to be better people, but they can never live up to the impossible standards set by the leader.'

Cult members are also often deliberately disoriented, and outside influences removed to reduce their ability to distinguish what's normal. McConkey says Lakaev insisted that she renounce her parents and never discuss anything that happened on the courses, claims Lakaev denies. But Carli's mother, Robyn, remembers: 'You'd just talk generally and she couldn't answer any simple questions because it pertained to what was happening up there, and it was all so secret. So there gradually just came a line where you didn't know what to talk about any more.'

A Melbourne family, who wish to remain anonymous, say their son is being recruited by the Jehovah's Witnesses and they are watching him drift away from them as the cult's persuasive techniques prove 'more powerful than the love of the family'. 'To have a heartfelt relationship with one of your children and then to have a superficial, plastic relationship, it's gut-wrenching,' says the father.

Cults also try to make it hard to find external, verifiable information. Lakaev uses lawyers to vigorously patrol public comment about her. She has legally pressured Google to remove links to websites critical of her and she is suing some former members for defamation over information they published on blogs.

Once Lakaev's disciples were hooked, their critical faculties broken down and their outside support cut off, Lakaev revealed her more extreme theology McConkey says she claimed to be a reincarnation of Jesus Christ, and one of the 12 members on the Intergalactic Council of the Universe. She came from the 'Bird Tribes' from a different dimension and she remembered all her past lives. In one of them she had been Queen of Atlantis. McConkey was told by Lakaev she had been a 'lady in waiting' in Atlantis and she felt she was put on earth to serve her.

Lakaev also claimed 'spirit guides' who live in the sky told her what to do. This gave her divine authority when she insisted that the planet would soon be destroyed and

11   No 8/2024

most people would perish. Lakaev, though, would survive with her followers and become the dominant political figure. Cult leaders often describe their god-like powers, saying that theirs is the power of life and death. A number of sources back up McConkey's claims, but Lakaev concedes only that 'spirit guides' sometimes give her 'very clear thoughts', and that, 'from where I sit there are other dimensions that exist'.

Of the other claims, though: 'I do not consider myself the reincarnation of anything . . . There's no such thing as 12 members on an intergalactic council. These are just stories that we talked about, just stories to describe things and discuss things . . . They're just metaphors.' The end of the world, she claims, was not a prophecy. Her 'survival' course was simply designed to help people cope if the worst did happen.

McConkey vehemently stands by her version.

In her 13 years with Lakaev, McConkey completed 15 courses, some more than once, spending $41,395 on fees, much of it begged or borrowed from her parents. She met a man, Michael, and married him. He spent $34,540 on fees. Lakaev insinuated herself into every aspect of McConkey's life. She was maid of honour at Carli and Michael's wedding. McConkey insisted that Lakaev, rather than her own mother, an experienced midwife, assist at the birth of her children.

In December 1999, McConkey began working for Lakaev in the office without wages, and also cleaning and maintaining her properties. She and Michael bought a share in Lakaev's company, Universal Knowledge, for $20,000, believing they were buying equity, securing their future. They received nothing in return. Company documents show $420,000 was raised from investors in this manner, and Lakaev admits none have seen a return.

Lakaev later came up with spurious excuses to make McConkey and her husband pay her a further $140,000, claiming they were debts they owed. Both worked second and third jobs to pay this back. McConkey estimates that Lakaev owes them another $440,000 for their free labour over nine years.

Lakaev also convinced McConkey to seek an apprehended violence order against her parents and her brother. The court rejected the applications after McConkey gave misleading evidence. Lakaev claims instead that she had tried to help McConkey reconcile with her parents.

McConkey and her husband had more than one period apart as they dealt with the psychological and financial pressures imposed by Lakaev. In the meantime, McConkey says she was psychologically abused and physically assaulted by Lakaev, and was separated from her sons because Lakaev convinced her she was a 'human f--- up". Lakaev also once beat McConkey's young son with a wooden spoon, she says.

Lakaev denies any physical abuse, saying McConkey was the violent one, who had 'done some very strange things with her kids'. 'She's going to end up in court herself. Carli's one of these girls who goes to psychics 24/7; she's not really that stable.'

Lakaev's supporters, who phoned The Sunday Age after my interview with her last week, said Lakaev was the victim of jealousy because she was a strong, independent businesswoman. They said they had seen McConkey leaving her young children home alone when she went to work. McConkey admits neglecting her children at times, but says she was forced to in the attempt to fulfil Lakaev's demands.

For 13 years she stayed in thrall to the cult, living on or near Lakaev's northern NSW property, Omaroo. The promise of 'survival', the hope of financial reward (from her shareholding in Universal Knowledge), and the occasional compliment was enough to keep her loyal. But in March 2009, in a state of exhaustion, McConkey agreed to something she will regret forever.

'After the birth of my first son, from age 27, Natasha would tell me I was abusive, a liar and a manipulator and I shouldn't look after any children. She started saying, "You should get sterilised", McConkey recalls. "After eight years, two more children

12   No 8/2024

and being repeatedly told to get sterilised, I gave in. I was separated from my husband at that time and I just knew I wouldn't be able to cope with another child in that environment and I thought, "Well, I'll just do it now".'

McConkey is strong. Many former cult members can never speak about their experiences. But after just nine months away from Lakaev, she held her nerve throughout her account to me. When she tells me about the sterilisation though, the tears flow.

'The doctor said, "Are you sure you want to do this? You've still got 10 years of fertility left". I said, "No, it's what I want". But it wasn't. Someone else had placed that idea in my head. I did it purely for her, to be able to focus more on her and her needs. "After I left this year, I was in the girls' clothing section at Big W and I just had to really grieve that I wasn't able to have a little girl."'

McConkey says the process of cult indoctrination had led her, inch by inch, to a place she could never have imagined. But Lakaev denies having any role in McConkey's decision. "I was a friend of Carli's . . . We had a symbiotic relationship," Lakaev says.

Finally, in January this year, McConkey could handle no more. She picked up her children and drove away into what she believed was certain death at doomsday. "I was exhausted, had been beaten up again and was unable to cope with any more psychological and emotional pressure. I just said to myself, 'I don't care if I die in two years' time, I would prefer to be free and enjoy my children'.

The feeling of freedom was almost immediate. But McConkey deals with shame and guilt over things she has done to her children, her family, her husband and other cult members. Some family members still will not talk to her. And she finds it difficult to plan for anything after Armageddon, which Lakaev prophesied would be December 12, 2012.

"'I believe about 50 per cent that 'Survival' is going to happen and I just hope that it's not going to," McConkey says. "If I wake up on the 13th [of December] and nothing has happened I'm just going to celebrate and hope to God that whoever is still caught up with that woman is just going to get up and leave.'

People sometimes ask why cult members do not simply exercise their free will and run away. But Kenja escapee Adrian Norman says his free will was reduced to a 'pilot light' while in the cult. Mind control techniques are subtle and powerful. They turn your own mind against you. "Prison walls and chains are not necessary when one believes these things", says Whitsett.

The good news is people can escape and recover, and McConkey is determined to do so. "I go through bouts of feeling really down but I know I can get out of them because I don't want to be depressed any more . . . I still feel angry, but I don't feel as much fear.'"

13           The second article is entitled "Alleged leader of cult works as psychologist" and was written by Michael Bachelard and published in the Sydney Morning Herald online on 17 October 2010. It reads as follows:

"A woman accused of leading a cult that has damaged the lives of scores of people is working as a psychologist with vulnerable patients at a community mental health service in Queensland.

Natasha Lakaev's Universal Knowledge organisation was offering courses until last year that prophesied the world would end in December 2012 and almost everyone except her devotees would die.

A former member of her inner circle, Carli McConkey, has told The Sunday Age that Ms Lakaev was physically violent and psychologically manipulative, and had

13   No 8/2024

persuaded her followers that she was the Queen of Atlantis, a reincarnation of Jesus
Christ, and one of 12 members of the Intergalactic Council of the Universe.

Ms Lakaev is now working as a government-employed psychologist at the Ashmore Community Mental Health Service near Surfers Paradise. However, after The Sunday Age raised questions about her history, Queensland Health agreed to investigate the claims against her, and invited 'anyone with concerns' to raise them with authorities.

Ms Lakaev denies all the claims of her former followers, saying she did not run a cult, had never been violent, and the theological claims were merely 'metaphors', adding, 'this stuff has been taken completely out of context'.

Complaints against her by former acolytes have been investigated once by Queensland's health regulator, but no action taken. The national health regulator will not comment except to say Ms Lakaev 'has current registration and is therefore deemed fit to practise'.

Ms Lakaev's lawyers wrote last December that she was working as a case manager.

'A large proportion of her clients are often initially highly unstable with disorders such as schizophrenia, delusional disorders, major depression, major anxiety and personality disorders,' the letter said. 'Forensic clients with homicidal backgrounds are also present on the clinic client list.'

Ms Lakaev has faced criticism for more than a decade about the extreme practices on her courses, and accusations that she was a practitioner of 'coercive persuasion' or mind control techniques.

Ms McConkey, who spent 13 years under Ms Lakaev's sway and only escaped in January this year, said Ms Lakaev had hit her and exploited her. Ms McConkey lived on or near Ms Lakaev's northern NSW property, Omaroo, near Burringbar, for many years, and during that time handed over $140,000 and spent nine years working without pay in her office. 'Natasha Lakaev should in no way be a registered psychologist,' Ms McConkey said.

Ms Lakaev's business, Universal Knowledge, is styled as a new age personal development course. It has not offered courses since last year, but the program promises to cleanse the 'cellular memory' of its participants and help them take the 'next evolutionary step' by lifting them into the fourth dimension.

Ms Lakaev told The Sunday Age she had not worked with the business for many years. However, she founded the business in 1999 and she is listed on the website as 'guiding individuals and groups for over 20 years in cellular memory cleansing'. It is based at her property and is run by one of her devotees, and she and her children own 75 per cent of the shares.

She begged The Sunday Age not to refer to her work at Ashmore. She said: 'I don't harm people, I'm really good at my job, my clients are fine, my patients are fine.'''

The plaintiff's case

14   The first witness called on the trial was the plaintiff.

15           At a high level of abstraction her evidence was that she really only knew the defendant from her involvement in classes which were conducted by her, although she had started receiving "love letters" from her from about 1996. She said that she had never had a cup of coffee with her, had never spoken to her on the telephone other than to ask to be put on to someone else, and had not had a one on one conversation with her, at least after 2000 or 2001. She said that the defendant quickly became a nuisance who could not observe healthy boundaries and pestered her for employment, which the plaintiff refused. She agreed, however, that she assisted the defendant with her wedding in 2005 and

14   No 8/2024

attended it "under duress", as well as attending that year, a "Water Blessing and Naming Ceremony"
for the defendant's sons, Sebastian and Jacob, and other children in the plaintiff's group.

16           The plaintiff painted the defendant as a stalker, stealing keys to her house and being in her bedroom at odd times without her permission and taking her linen. On one occasion she said that the defendant lived in her home without permission and was heard to call her three sons by the names of the plaintiff's three son's. She described her perception of the defendant as constituting a threat to the safety of her and her family to the extent that, in around 2000 or 2001, she and her family moved from Omaroo to Brisbane. The plaintiff said that the move to Brisbane was specifically to avoid having the defendant visit her home. Asked if the defendant was a friend of hers she answered:

"She was somebody I was an acquaintance with. I never went to coffee with her, I never went to her home, I felt for her children. She was quite isolated, she did not have many friends. When we had functions, like birthdays, I always felt that her children and her should be included, we couldn't invite everybody else around her and not her, but I only ever saw her in large group events."

Asked what her reaction was to the behaviour of the defendant, the plaintiff answered:

"I would put myself in a position where I only ever had witnesses around me. It became very obvious to me that the truth was a very difficult thing for Ms McConkey. There was many instances of behaviours and actions that were very troubling to me. I felt that myself (sic) was not safe, my family was not safe. Friends and family members. And what I did is, I made an effort in around 2000, 2001, to leave the property and move to Brisbane, and change my children's schools. And from that period on, I would remain away from Ms McConkey unless there were other witnesses. Ms McConkey was asked repeatedly, especially after the birth of her first child, to please go back to Sydney to her family. Her family wanted her there. I felt it would be healthier for her to be there. And I – it was repeated, not by just me, but anyway, I very specifically would've liked her to have gone home."

17          By and large, the foregoing is the substance of the plaintiff's account given in her evidence-in- chief of the nature and extent of her 13 year long association with the defendant.

18           At a high level of abstraction the plaintiff made a blanket denial of every one of the allegations made against her in the 120 or so pages of the annexures (in the nature of particulars of the truth of the pleaded imputations), to the defendant's defence. No concessions whatever were made by the plaintiff to the defendant's claims as to the controlling and abusive nature of the relationship between her and the plaintiff.

19           At a granular level the plaintiff responded in her evidence-in-chief to a number of specific allegations contained in the impugned publications and the annexures to the defendant's defence. The following passage from the transcript of the trial contains the bulk of the denials:

"Dr Lakaev, have you read the book, The Cult Effect?......I have read it.

Thank you. Are you able to tell the Court what your reaction to it was?......Horrified.

Having read that book, if I could ask you some questions. Have you ever initiated and encouraged people to yell and scream, and get physical with other people?......No.

In your business at Universal Knowledge – in the business of Universal Knowledge, did you hit or shove people?......No.

And I'll – I'll preface my – all of my questions at – within that – within you association of Universal Knowledge. Did you ever tell people they needed to experience drugs?......No. On the contrary.

Did you ever ask a person to bring their marijuana joints to the business?......No.

15   No 8/2024

To a program?......In fact, our – once somebody comes to do a workshop, it's a line in there specifically that states that there's no cigarettes, no alcohol, no drugs of any sort, to be brought into the property.

Thank you. Did you ever, yourself, take drugs? Non-prescribed drugs. Or, perhaps if I withdraw that, say, illicit drugs?......Well, I tried THC or marijuana when I was at university, which is something that everybody did, I suppose, at the time. Are you asking me was I a regular smoker of any kind, or taking any drugs? No.

So within the business – ?......No.

– were you taking illicit drugs?......No.

Have you ever called Ms McConkey a 'fucking idiot' and a 'stupid bitch'?......No.

They're not my –

'Or', I should say 'or'...... – terminologies.

Have you ever abused Ms McConkey on the telephone?......No, because she didn't have my telephone number.

To the extent that, a short while ago, you gave some evidence that Ms McConkey seeked (sic) to obtain a telephone number of yours?......Mhm.

Did you ever – did you ever abuse her at any – those times?......No.

Thank you......I just hang up. Go change the number.

Have you ever called Ms McConkey a 'selfish brat'?......No.

Have you ever called her a 'fat, lazy dog'?......No.

Have you ever said to her that she was a 'fucking C-U-N-T'?......No. Those words were not used. They're more frequently used now, and I had – took real umbrage to those words.

Thank you. Have you ever taken money, that is, unlawfully taken money, from an income protection claim, pursued on behalf of Nick – one Nick Panos?......No.

Have you ever told Michael Greene to hit and slap Ms McConkey?......No.

Have you ever said to Michael Greene that if he – that if he did not beat Ms
McConkey, 'the guys', in quote, would knock some sense into him?......No.

Have you ever told anyone associated with Universal Knowledge to fraudulently state that they had each been paid seven thousand five hundred dollars in wages?......No, of course not.

Have you ever smacked Ms McConkey's then four year old son, Sebastian, with a wooden spoon and then a metal spoon?......No, but I've seen others do this.

Have you ever, at any time, hit one of Ms McConkey's sons with a wooden spoon or a metal spoon?......Never.

Have you ever said that you're a cult leader?......No.

Have you ever been convicted of a crime?......No.

Have you ever – I'll put it in a manner that will, hopefully, make sense to you – physically assaulted people?......No.

That is – that is, hit them?......No.

16   No 8/2024

Have you ever – trying to phrase this carefully, because you weren't a psychologist in
2002, were you?......No.

But have you ever, from your understanding of psychology now, psychologically abused people?......No.

In your association with a business, have you ever conned people out of money? I think you know what that phrase means?......No.

When you read Ms McConkey's book, did you also read the annexures to the book, which were republications of certain media publications?......I saw them, I didn't re- read them.

You haven't read them in any detail, or – ?......Well, I've read them previously.

Thank you. So, if I draw on your previous reading of those publications, do you
consider that you have ever manipulated Ms McConkey?......No, the exact opposite.

I've been manipulated.

Thank you. Have you ever hit her?......No.

Did you ever take money from her, unlawfully?......No.

Now, you've heard – oh sorry, you understand, from the book, that Ms McConkey says that you employed her. Do you recall?......I do recall.

Have you ever employed her?......No, she's never received a group certificate, and only those that have worked for us have.

Thank you. So, am I correct in understanding that you never paid her a wage?......Because she was on Centrelink and collecting monies from elsewhere.

Thank you. Do you ever – do you consider that in the business – you ever – tried to critically break down the faculties of people within the courses?......No, the exact opposite.

Have you ever claimed to be the reincarnation of Jesus Christ?......Never.

Have you ever claimed to be one of 12 members of – on – on the Intergalactic

Council of the Universe?......No.

Have you ever told Ms McConkey that you had been a lady-in-waiting (sic) in

Atlantis?......No.

And do you know whether or not Ms McConkey ever purchased shares in Universal pay off their shares. And I wasn't really concerned if they didn't.

Did you ever try to convince Ms McConkey that she was – what has been described as a 'human fuck-up'?......No, but I've heard her use these words about herself.

Thank you. Are you able to say when?......Many times. You would go into workshops, and in workshops you would hear these things. She would be in conversations, you could hear her outside. No, I never.

Thank you. Now, you are familiar with the content of your amended statement of claim?......Yes.

Thank you. And in particular, you have knowledge of the online publications that are pleaded in – ?......Yes.

– set out in red in the document. Correct?......Yes.

17   No 8/2024

Do you consider that you've ever abused Ms McConkey?......No. However, I have been on the receiving end –

Thank you. Do – ?...... – and others that I've witnessed.

Do you ever consider that you've abused other people within Universal

Knowledge?......No.

Would you describe yourself as a violent extremist?......No.

Would you describe yourself as a terrorist?......No.

Do you consider you've ever been involved in a cult?......No, exact opposite.

Thank you. And I ask you this question because it's slightly different to an earlier
question I asked you: have you ever bashed Ms McConkey up?......No. However,
I've been on the receiving end.

Can you say what that means?......That she has hit me, left me with bruises on my chest, arms and legs. And photos of that were sent to the North Sydney Police.

Thank you. Have you ever accused – sorry, I withdraw that. Have you ever threatened Ms McConkey that you would report her to the Department of Child Safety and have her children taken away from her?......No. Somebody came to me,

stating that they would report her to the Department of Child Safety because one of
her children was very ill, and she hadn't taken them to the hospital."

20   The plaintiff described the program she ran known as The Next Evolutionary Step, as follows:

"It's primarily different forms of meditations, a range of different meditations. Some of them are very old, they come from a – like an Ayurveda perspective. Some of them have chants, some of them are quiet, some of them are open-eyed meditations, some of them are closed-eye meditations, with an exploration of each of your emotions, so that if somebody has too much of one, or not enough of another, we sort of help to bring an equilibrium. It's about working through any – for the worried well, any perceived traumas that they may have encountered during their lifetime, for them to go in and have a look at this on their own. Each individual process is done for the workshop participant, yep. Nobody guides you on what to or not do, it's your choice. This is laid out, and then they step in, and they do each of these processes or meditations."

21          She was asked if aggression was an element of the program and the exchange with her counsel, Mr D Zeeman, was as follows:

"There is a process on a Saturday, where we go through, how do you express aggression, how do you express sadness, how do you express happiness, how do you express joy, how do you express grief, fear, and – and then, an example, that lasts about one minutes, of – music comes on that represents, or could represent that emotion. And then, everybody gets up for one minute, expresses it, sits back down. And then, when you get to the Sunday, on a Sunday morning, there is a – about an hour, where each emotion has about 10 minutes, where you can express it fully for 10 minutes. And it goes anger, grief, fear, and then it goes happiness, laughter, bliss. And you do that for around 10 minutes to music, each way along. And then it finishes with a meditation.

Thank you. And fists on black mats, is that part of the program?......It would be. You get a corner of a mat, a small corner. Someone shows you how you could express anger. Everybody has a different way of doing it. But it's only to the mat.

And not to a person?......No, never."

18   No 8/2024

22           The plaintiff said that she had never observed the defendant huddled in a corner at such a program, nor stopped her from hugging her mother, or denied her free access to the toilet, or the opportunity to eat, or in any way embarrassed or bullied, battered, indoctrinated or took financial advantage of the defendant or anyone else. The plaintiff denied that she was a criminal, used drugs or breached industrial legislation. She denied that she required the defendant to undertake a course known as The Final Step twice. She denied that the defendant had ever cooked or cleaned for her.

23   The plaintiff called four witnesses.

24           The first of those was Mr Alex Paine. Mr Paine gave evidence that he had read the plaintiff's amended statement of claim and the defendant's defence to that document. He was taken through the defendant's claims made in justification and denied that he had seen her bullied or assaulted by the plaintiff or unhappy in the Universal Knowledge workshops that they had done together. The thrust of his evidence was in line with the picture of the defendant painted by the plaintiff. He gave evidence that the defendant had physically assaulted the plaintiff in the office at Omaroo on two occasions in around 2009 and had told the plaintiff that she would go to the media with the claim that the plaintiff was a cult leader unless the plaintiff paid her $300,000, gave her the use of a motor vehicle and allowed her to instruct courses or workshops if they started up again at some point in the future.

25          Mr Paine stated that everything in the defendant's book was a lie. Specifically, as to being involved in a cult, the following exchange relates:

"… In your dealings with Natasha Lakaev and doing the various courses with Universal Knowledge, do you ever believe that Natasha Lakaev created an environment where true believers, like you, were enthralled by her to keep you within her belief system?......Yeah, I don't know what that means in terms of 'true believers',

I mean she encouraged healthy discussion, if people wanted to raise issues with each other or whatever, so there was no common belief or common opinion or whatever. I mean, I've never, in my lifetime, come across more people that have differing views and different opinions and feel free to express those opinions.

Do you believe that Natasha Lakaev ever encouraged you to isolate yourself with her?......Not at all. I enjoyed a strong relationship with my family all through the years and it's only since the publication of this book and what's on the internet that it's deteriorated any relationships I have with family.

Thank you. Did you ever believe that Natasha Lakaev tried to keep you within a close inner circle?......No, I don't even know what inner circle was, if there existed an inner circle, I wasn't in it."

26           Mr Paine was not an independent witness. He was clearly in the plaintiff's camp and very supportive of her. He was very close to the plaintiff and regarded her as "familial family". She was the godmother of his daughter Ella. I will deal with my observations as to his credibility later in these reasons. I will also deal later with any other aspects of his evidence which may become relevant to a consideration of whether the pleaded imputations are substantially true.

27           The plaintiff's next witness was Ms Keicha Adams. Ms Adams gave evidence that she had witnessed the defendant "volunteering" in the plaintiff's office at Omaroo in the year 2000, that the defendant was incompetent and that she had witnessed her being asked to go home to her family "countless times". Ultimately Ms Adams said that she herself had resigned from the Combined Personal Mastery group in about 2006 because of the defendant's incompetence. She said that in particular the mess the defendant had made of the Sun Earth Tours business was the "last straw" for her. Ms Adams said that she had been paid for her work as a cleaner at Omaroo for a period of 8 months and that she had later worked as a nanny for the plaintiff without pay – although it had been offered.

19   No 8/2024

28           Ms Adams gave evidence that in around 2008 the defendant said to her that if she ever left the plaintiff's group she would go to the media and destroy the plaintiff and her business. The relevant passage in the transcript is as follows:

"You say – you've said in your evidence that you know Carli McConkey?......Mhm.

Did you have any dealings with her in 2008, that you recall?......2008 specifically, some. I was working in the office, alongside Andrea and Tracy at various times.

Can you give their surnames?......Andrea McSherry and Tracy Foster.

Thank you......Doing – just various bits and pieces. I had a number of interactions with Ms McConkey in that time. She wasn't working in the office, but I did see her outside. It's sort of hard to pin down. On one occasion, she'd told me, directly, that if she ever left, she would destroy Natasha and the business. She was sitting on the pavers, outside, at that particular moment in time. On various other occasions, when there were interactions between Dr Lakaev and Ms McConkey –

I think if you talk about interactions which you witnessed?......Which I witnessed and I was there for? There were – Dr Lakaev asked Ms McConkey to leave, 'Please go home to your family.' As she had said for countless times in the years prior to that.

Which you had heard, or – ?......Which I had heard, and I had heard other people request the same.

Thank you. Did you ever speak to Ms McConkey about what you said she said about if she ever left, she would destroy Natasha?......I was actually really quite shocked when she said that, and I said why? And she said, 'I just will.' And I said – but, then she said that she would go to the media, and use the media to do it, and that they would believe her. I initially responded, 'That won't destroy her.' And she said, 'Well, what will?' And then I realised, in my mind, or I thought that she would then take – …"

29 As with the evidence of Mr Paine to a similar effect, the defendant did not challenge this evidence in her cross-examination of Ms Adams, although she denied it in her own testimony. Apart from the issue of credit though, such evidence will only assume significance in the event that I need to consider the issue of malice. It will not be relevant, for example, in relation to the defendant's principal defence of justification pursuant to s 25 of the Act.

30          Ms Adams also gave evidence that the defendant told her that she had been sexually abused by her father and by "a black man".

31           Ms Adams gave evidence that she had completed many of the plaintiff's courses and that over a period of some ten years she had come into contact with "a couple of thousand" course participants. She said that she had read the defendant's book and was disgusted by it and that it was largely fabricated. The relevant passage in the transcript is as follows:

"MR ZEEMAN:… Is there any particular criticism you have of Ms McConkey's
book?......I – honestly, I felt violated when I read it. I think she took and – she took
like a broad event or something like it and then twisted it into something that was
completely untrue. The level of fabrication in it is mindboggling."

32           Perhaps of interest only, given that the relevant pleaded imputation is that the plaintiff had "wrongfully indoctrinated people" and not that she was a "cult leader", it emerged for the first time on the trial during Ms Adams' cross-examination that it was Thomas Rabold, in the year 2000, who had informed the defendant that the plaintiff's group was a cult, and I infer, that the plaintiff was its leader. Mr Rabold was the plaintiff's first husband and the father of her three children. The relevant passage in the transcript of Ms Adams' cross-examination is as follows:

20   No 8/2024

"Okay, but you would agree that I wasn't the first to identify or allege that the plaintiff

was a cult leader, is that true?......No, that would be Tom.

Tom started it?......Tom Rabold started it.

Okay......And Tom Rabold said things to you in the house when we lived there, that you started to pick up and run with, and you ran up to Dr Lakaev and you went

HIS HONOUR: Sorry, which house?

WITNESS: 98 Hunter Street, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Right, thank you.

MS McCONKEY: (Resuming) And Tom Rabold is – was the plaintiff's first husband. Is that correct?......Ex-husband, yes.

Yep. You can keep going, Ms Adams?......You ran up to Dr Lakaev, and you said that Tom had said this, Tom had said that, and that you didn't believe him, and then – there was issues that ensued because him and his mouth just didn't stop.

HIS HONOUR: When was this? WITNESS: 2000, your Honour. HIS HONOUR: Mmm.

WITNESS: I only lived there for around about eight months."

33           As with Mr Paine, I am unable to accept that Ms Adams was an independent witness and I will deal with her credibility later in these reasons. She was obviously very close to the plaintiff. I will also deal later with any other aspects of her evidence which may become relevant to a consideration of whether the pleaded imputations are substantially true.

34           The plaintiff's next witness was Mr Patrick Maher. Mr Maher gave evidence that he had known the plaintiff since 1997 and is a friend of hers who sees her occasionally. Both he and his wife were shareholders in Universal Knowledge.

35           Mr Maher said that over a period of some 10 years, between 1995 and 2005 or 2006, he completed a number of the plaintiff's courses, including The Next Evolutionary Step, The Final Step, Personal Mastery and Metaphysical Counselling, Freedom in Relationships, and Initiates and Survivors, some of them completed with the defendant. He said that he was also a member of the Combined Personal Mastery group.

36           Mr Maher gave evidence that he had never felt threatened or fearful in the plaintiff's sphere, that he had never seen anyone threatened or assaulted and that he had never seen the plaintiff incite anyone to assault another person. He said that he had never seen the plaintiff threaten or assault the defendant. He said that the plaintiff had never told him to physically or verbally abuse Misha Del Rae and that he had not done so.

37           Mr Maher said that he had never seen the defendant working for the plaintiff as a personal assistant to the plaintiff. He said that the defendant "was often there, but not as a personal assistant, that I was aware". He said that Andrea McSherry may have been the plaintiff's personal assistant.

38           Mr Maher said that he had never felt indoctrinated in the plaintiff's courses. He said that they were mentally and physically challenging but there were enjoyable parts and he felt that he had benefited from them.

21   No 8/2024

39           Mr Maher appeared to me to be a little less close to the plaintiff than her other witnesses, although he remained sitting with her in Court for a couple of days after he had given his evidence, (as did Mr Paine, Ms Adams and Ms Carroll). He was clearly in the plaintiff's camp and was not a truly independent witness. I will deal with his credibility later in these reasons. I will also deal later with any other aspects of his evidence which may become relevant to a consideration of whether the pleaded imputations are substantially true.

40           The plaintiff's next witness was her son Mr Khaney Lakaev. He gave evidence that he would describe the plaintiff's workshops as personal development courses, although he only ever did one – The Next Evolutionary Step at age 16. He was asked in examination-in-chief if he considered the course helpful and he answered "I had an extremely well-balanced childhood, so what I was taught wasn't anything that was new".

41          Mr Lakaev was asked about an incident in which the defendant asserts that the plaintiff battered Michael Greene. The following passage of the transcript relates:

"No? Okay, no problem. Okay, do you recall that your mum told Michael Greene,
my husband, in around 2007, to tutor you in maths and physics?......Yes.

Yep. Okay, do you recall, when Michael Greene came up one day to help you, you said that you didn't need the help?......No, I don't recall that at all.

Okay. Well, do you admit that when your mum found out that Michael Greene hadn't helped you, she got that wooden rod that is kept behind the door of Omaroo and beat him with that wooden rod for up to 20 minutes?......No. I've got absolutely no idea

what you're talking about.

No. And that your girlfriend, Bailey, actually witnessed that?......Bailey most certainly wouldn't have witnessed that. Bailey wouldn't have been up then that afternoon if I was trying to study." (Emphasis added.)

42           Mr Lakaev had the demeanour of an honest witness but he was obviously not an independent witness and I will deal with his credibility, or perhaps more particularly, his reliability, later in these reasons. I will also deal later with any other aspects of his evidence which may become relevant to a consideration of whether the pleaded imputations are substantially true.

43           The plaintiff's next witness was Mr Thomas Rabold. Mr Rabold was married to the plaintiff for 12 years from 1985 to 1998 and is the father of her three children. He was an original purchaser of Omaroo in 1987. He was a shareholder and director of Universal Knowledge and was involved with the design and development of the company's workshops. He developed the logistic and adventure side of the courses while the plaintiff, he said, developed the theoretical side. He said that her curriculum was "three inches thick".

44           Mr Rabold said that he had only ever partially completed one of the courses, namely Personal Mastery and Metaphysical Counselling, but that he had been a support worker on numerous courses. He said that he had never seen the plaintiff punish anyone and he had never seen anyone forced to do anything. He said that he had never seen her hit or batter anyone and that he had never seen her urge anyone else to do the same to someone. He also said that he had never seen the plaintiff "con" anyone. He said that he had never seen the plaintiff bully anyone but that the courses were physically intensive and he had seen the plaintiff "encourage in a strong manner".

45          Mr Rabold explained the use of the black mats referred to in evidence, but he said that he had never seen anyone held down under them. He said:

"Right from the start, even in the very first program that anybody did, the use of those mats was explained at that point. And they were there so that if anybody needed to

22   No 8/2024

access an emotion, in other words – and that emotion could be – it could be brief. They may want to cry and lay on a mat and cry. It could be anger and if their anger was really intense they could physically express that physically by bashing a mat or tearing at it or doing whatever they wanted to physically get over that emotion so that they can just calm down and then get to the bottom of what that emotion was about. By removing the physical aspect. And that was the complete purpose of having those mats."

46   In 1998 Mr Rabold moved in to share accommodation at 98 Hunter Street with the defendant.

He said at that time:

"I was no longer a partner in the business. I was now employed by the business, because the function centre that I had designed and project managed wasn't finished. It was at the fit-out stage, and there was a good year or probably a year and a half's work to finish that off. And I wanted to finish that off prior to moving on".

47          Mr Rabold gave evidence that he moved away from Burringbar altogether in about mid to late 2000 and that he had spoken to Ms McConkey before he left saying:

"I said to her that I believe that her and her friends, and I was relating to a younger group of people that had become more involved – I said, "You know she's gonna turn this whole thing into a cult."

48           In cross-examination Mr Rabold stated that participants on the defendant's 1996 The Final Step course were not denied food, but he said that the service crew had gone on strike because one of the defendant's fellow students had been disrespectful to them. Mr Rabold agreed that participants were given set toilet breaks but he said that no one complained. He said:

"I must say, that we tried to – and explained to the students right at the start that there would be toilet breaks and that way they could fundamentally know there's going to be a break coming up and maybe hold on a little bit rather than everybody rushing out wherever they wanted to go. So, there were always ample toilet breaks."

49           I accept Mr Rabold's evidence as truthful and reliable to the extent that he was in a position to speak to relevant matters. I will deal with his credibility or, as with Mr Lakaev, perhaps more particularly, his reliability, later in these reasons. I will also deal later with any other aspects of his evidence which may become relevant to a consideration of whether the pleaded imputations are substantially true.

50           The plaintiff's final witness was Ms Anita Carroll. Ms Carroll first met the plaintiff in about May 1996 when she attended an introduction night for one of the plaintiff's courses. She completed The Next Evolutionary Step and then went on to do a further 14 workshops over 11 years. She completed the Personal Mastery and Metaphysical Counselling course twice and she became a member of the Combined Personal Mastery group. She and the plaintiff became friends in about 2000 and she cared for the plaintiff's children between 2000 and 2007 when, Ms Carroll said, the plaintiff "was kind of most ill". Ms Carroll was in the plaintiff's house five days a week during this period. She lived under the plaintiff's house in Brisbane and she and the plaintiff later shared a house together. It is obvious that they remain close friends.

51           Ms Carroll said that Life Integration Programmes and later Universal Knowledge were "about giving life skills to help integrate … as a person to function on an emotional, physical, spiritual level and be…integrated and be able to then go out into the world and function on a more holistic capacity."

52          She said:

"Okay, so the way the workshops ran is that when you came into any of the workshops, everyone would make agreements to keep confidential anything (sic) was

23   No 8/2024

divulged by other participants, as – from their personal life and the processes within the – that were done in the workshops but you were allowed to divulge any of your – your own experiences or your own – like – the own – your own kind of experience slash what you gained from the courses. That was freely for you to express to anyone. It was just more about creating a safe space for confidentiality for the other participants, so if they brought up stuff about their personal life, it was expected that that was a safe space that that information wouldn't be taken out into the community."

53   Ms Carroll said that she had read parts of the defendant's book. She said of it:

"Have you read a book authored by Carli McConkey known as The Cult Effect?......I
have read most of it, flicked through parts of it.

And in the parts that you've flicked through or read, do you have any conclusion as to what you talked about – what you spoke about – the confidential knowledge gained from other people, was there any breach of that in the book?......There was lots of

breaches of that. Personally, I have a great deal of anger and resentment and I'm quite incensed about the fact that Carli took my – like – my story supposedly, I suppose, and basically lied about lots of things.

So you don't accept that all of the representations regarding you in the book are accurate?......I would say most of the – most of the representations are inaccurate. Can I just say further to that, the – probably the biggest representation that was true was the fact that I had a relationship – like – my proximity, should I say, to Natasha, that was true. It probably represented reasonably true in the book. The rest of it, I would say, is not true." (Emphasis added.)

54           To my mind this issue of proximity to the plaintiff seemed important to Ms Carroll. She appeared to me to have been resentful of the defendant before the defendant wrote the book. She said that she participated in The Next Evolutionary Step course in October 1996. She said that what she noted on that program "and since have reflected on is that's when I first noticed her obsession with Natasha. She was always looking for proximity to Natasha." Asked about this by the defendant in cross-examination, Ms Carroll elucidated in a manner and tone that I found telling as to the effect that the plaintiff seems to have had over her. The passage in the transcript is as follows:

It was really obvious, Carli, like, so obvious.

"Yeah, okay. Okay, could you please describe how you made the observation that I physically proximity wise on that program.
was obsessive with the plaintiff on The Final Step?......Okay, so you were always –
whenever there was an opportunity to ask questions you always had your hand up.

Okay, and you'd admit that you – ?......I didn't even know you before that program and I went, "That woman is obsessed."

Okay. But you would admit that you lived with the plaintiff at various properties and that you're friends with her?......Yes.

Yeah, so – and you've worked in all of her companies for no pay and run around her son. You would admit that you actually had close – very close proximity to the plaintiff. Is that correct?......We – I'm not sure what you're asking me, Carli?

…

(g)	'Natasha told Michael to hit and slap me and tell me what a bad person and mother I was. 'Mick, you need to whack some sense into Carli. She's an absolute idiot. She has created all of this and you have let her. Take control of your "wife", Mick. I can't do it all for you!'
(h)	'Whether Michael wanted to beat me or not, Natasha said that if he didn't do what needed to be done, then the guys would knock some sense into him.'

…

(l)	'We had been taught by Natasha to smack our children with wooden spoons'.
(m)	'She is a criminal. She has physically assaulted people, psychologically abused people and conned people out of money!'"…

144   No 8/2024

"6	The Book also includes by way of annexures, the following publications of and concerning the plaintiff:
(a) An article headed "In thrall to a cult: how the unwary fall victim to mind control" purportedly published by The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper on 17 October 2010 containing the following publications, of and concerning the Plaintiff:

(i)          Carli McConkey is not mentally ill. Neither drugs nor alcohol has led her to this point. Instead, in 1996 she joined a New Age personal development group called Universal Knowledge, seeking clarity. Once McConkey converted to its aims, the group's leader, Natasha Lakaev, manipulated her, hit her, took hundreds of thousands of dollars from her, and worked her without pay for up to 22 hours a day, seven days a week."

…

(vi)        "McConkey and her husband had more than one period apart as they dealt with the psychological and financial pressures imposed by Lakaev. In the meantime, McConkey says she was psychologically abused and physically assaulted by Lakaev, and was separated from her sons because Lakaev convinced her she was a "human f--- up". Lakaev also once beat McConkey's young son with a wooden spoon, she says."; and

(vii)        "Finally, in January this year, McConkey could handle no more. She picked up her children and drove away into what she believed was certain death at doomsday. "I was exhausted, had been beaten up again and was unable to cope with any more psychological and emotional pressure. I just said to myself, 'I don't care if I die in two years' time, I would prefer to be free and enjoy my children'."

288 Given that I accept the evidence of the defendant and her witnesses and reject that of the plaintiff and her witnesses where their evidence differs, for the reasons that I have explained above, it follows from the evidence of the defendant and her witnesses that I have set out in these reasons as to these issues, that I have no doubt that the imputations that the impugned passages bore and were understood to bear, in their natural and ordinary meaning, namely that the plaintiff had unlawfully battered the defendant and other persons and incited battery by persons of other persons, is absolutely true and is justified pursuant to the defence provided pursuant to s 25 of the Act. I so find and hold.

The plaintiff had unlawfully obtained a financial advantage

289   The case as to this imputation pleaded in the statement of claim is as follows:

"7 The Book Passages and the Article Passages are defamatory of the plaintiff and bore and were understood to bear, in their natural and ordinary meaning that…

(e) In respect of those referred to at paragraphs 5(e), (f) and (i) and 6(a)(i) and (v) that the Plaintiff had unlawfully obtained a financial advantage;"

290   Those paragraphs read as follows:

"5  The Book contains, in its main text, the following publications, of and
concerning the plaintiff:

145   No 8/2024

…

(e)

"FRESH ZEN WHOLESALE continued until it became evident that it was no longer financially viable. Natasha then worked on getting Luke institutionalised into a psychiatric facility in Brisbane. I visited Luke at the hospital one day with Natasha, bringing along paperwork that I have been asked to prepare. He looked drugged out and weak, not at all like the strong and vibrant Luke I had once admitted (sic). Natasha asked Luke to sign over his Power of Attorney to her, and she commenced the process of pursuing an Income Protection claim on his behalf. This meant she could collect this money for herself."

(f)

"Madeline must have been an exceptional lawyer (keeping in mind she believed everything Natasha told her) as the court concluded that the claim was legitimate. Natasha was now collecting three income protection amounts, two in her name, and the other as Power of Attorney for Luke. With Luke safely in the care of the psychiatric hospital, Natasha got back together with Jeremy."

…

(i)          "Soon after the incident, Jeremy ran away again, before the contract had been completed. Sometime later Ted took Natasha to court to recover his equipment and recoup a percentage of the contracts they had secured, as he had a 50:50 share in the company and had virtually set up the whole business. Natasha told each of the PMC guys to sign legal documents stating that they had been paid $7,500 each in wages (which they had not) so she could present to the court the argument that there was no money left over from the business for Ted to lay claim to. She also included $20,000 worth of consultancy fees to herself."…

"6	The Book also includes by way of annexures, the following publications of and concerning the plaintiff:
(a) An article headed "In thrall to a cult: how the unwary fall victim to mind control" purportedly published by The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper on 17 October 2010 containing the following publications, of and concerning the Plaintiff:

(i)          "Carli McConkey is not mentally ill. Neither drugs nor alcohol has led her to this point. Instead, in 1996 she joined a New Age personal development group called Universal Knowledge, seeking clarity. Once McConkey converted to its aims, the group's leader, Natasha Lakaev, manipulated her, hit her, took hundreds of thousands of dollars from her, and worked her without pay for up to 22 hours a day, seven days a week."

…

(v)

"In December 1999, McConkey began working for Lakaev in the office without wages, and also cleaning and maintaining her properties. She and Michael bought a share in Lakaev's company, Universal Knowledge, for $20,000, believing they were buying equity, securing their future. They received nothing in return. Company documents show $420,000 was raised from investors in this manner, and Lakaev admits none have seen a return."

291         Given that I accept the evidence of the defendant and her witnesses and reject that of the plaintiff and her witnesses where their evidence differs, for the reasons that I have explained above, it

146   No 8/2024

follows from the evidence of the defendant and her witnesses that I have set out in these reasons (including as to the John Jenz/Fresh Zen Wholesale income protection claim and the JJ Steel transactions), that I have no doubt that the imputations that the impugned passages bore and were understood to bear, in their natural and ordinary meaning, namely that the plaintiff had unlawfully obtained a financial advantage, is absolutely true and is justified pursuant to the defence provided pursuant to s 25 of the Act. I so find and hold.

Plaintiff's use of illicit drugs

292   The case as to this imputation is pleaded in the statement of claim as follows:

"The imputations from the book passages and the article passages are pleaded as
follows:

"7  The Book Passages and the Article Passages are defamatory of the plaintiff and bore and were understood to bear, in their natural and ordinary meaning that:

(f) In respect of those referred to at paragraph 5(b), that the Plaintiff had unlawfully used illicit drugs and had encouraged others to do so."

293   That paragraph reads as follows:

"5  The Book contains, in its main text, the following publications, of and
concerning the plaintiff:

…

(b) 'Once we have completed the major portion of our PMC assignments, Natasha told us, one night in a meeting, that she had something special in store for us. She explained that, due to us counselling people from all manner of society, we had to be prepared and empathetic with our clients. Therefore, we needed to experience taking drugs.

Natasha proceeded to ask one of her Support Team members to bring our marijuana joints which she said were from reputable sources nearby, whom they had bought from previously. She told those of the group who were predisposed to drug addiction that they could partake if they wanted to, as it was under a controlled environment where the Support Team would be in close vicinity. However, once we commenced smoking the joints, the Support Team joined in, as well as Natasha.'"

294 Given that I accept the evidence of the defendant and her witnesses and reject that of the plaintiff and her witnesses where their evidence differs, for the reasons that I have explained above, it follows from the evidence of the defendant and her witnesses on this issue that I have set out in these reasons, that I have no doubt that the imputations that the impugned passages bore and were understood to bear, in their natural and ordinary meaning, namely that the plaintiff had unlawfully used illicit drugs and had encouraged others to do so, is absolutely true and is justified pursuant to the defence provided pursuant to s 25 of the Act. I so find and hold.

The plaintiff wrongfully indoctrinated people

295   The case as to this imputation is pleaded in the statement of claim as follows:

"7  The Book Passages and the Article Passages are defamatory of the plaintiff and bore and were understood to bear, in their natural and ordinary meaning that:

147   No 8/2024

…

(g) In respect of those referred to at paragraphs 5(k) and 6(a)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (vi) and (vii) and (b)(i), (ii) and (iii), that the Plaintiff had wrongfully indoctrinated people"

296   Those paragraphs read as follows:

"5  The Book contains, in its main text, the following publications, of and
concerning the plaintiff:

(k)	'In a matter of minutes, with clearer thoughts, and way from the clutches of Natasha and her increasingly paranoid world, I began to realise that she was a cult leader, and I had been part of a cult.'
…

6            The Book also includes by way of annexures, the following publications of and concerning the plaintiff:

(a)  An article headed 'In thrall to a cult: how the unwary fall victim to mind control' purportedly published by The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper on 17 October 2010 containing the following publications, of and concerning the Plaintiff:

(i)          'Carli McConkey is not mentally ill. Neither drugs nor alcohol has led her to this point. Instead, in 1996 she joined a New Age personal development group called Universal Knowledge, seeking clarity. Once McConkey converted to its aims, the group's leader, Natasha Lakaev, manipulated her, hit her, took hundreds of thousands of dollars from her, and worked her without pay for up to 22 hours a day, seven days a week.'

(ii)         'These techniques appear to be for health reasons but they actually have the effect of debilitation," says Whitsett. "They reduce the person's ability to think critically, to reason, and when people are so weak the 'self' is impaired, they are easier to control and manipulate.'

(iii)        'Whitsett says this "continuous barrage of attacks on the 'self' keeps the person in a continuous state of failure, of low self- esteem, and attached to the cult.'

(iv)        'Once Lakaev's disciples were hooked, their critical faculties broken down and their outside support cut off, Lakaev revealed her more extreme theology. McConkey says she claimed to be a reincarnation of Jesus Christ, and one of the 12 members on the Intergalactic Council of the Universe. She came from the "Bird Tribes" from a different dimension and she remembered all her past lives. In one of them she had been Queen of Atlantis. McConkey was told by Lakaev she had been a "lady in waiting" in Atlantis and she felt she was put on earth to serve her.'

…
(vi)	'McConkey and her husband had more than one period apart as they dealt with the psychological and financial pressures imposed by Lakaev. In the meantime, McConkey says she was psychologically abused and physically assaulted by Lakaev, and was separated from her sons because Lakaev convinced her she was a "human f--- up". Lakaev also once

148   No 8/2024

beat McConkey's young son with a wooden spoon, she says';
and

(vii)       'Finally, in January this year, McConkey could handle no more. She picked up her children and drove away into what she believed was certain death at doomsday. "I was exhausted, had been beaten up again and was unable to cope with any more psychological and emotional pressure. I just said to myself, 'I don't care if I die in two years' time, I would prefer to be free and enjoy my children'.

(b)

An article headed 'Alleged leader of cult works as psychologist' purportedly published by The Sunday Age newspaper on 17 October 2010 containing the following publications, of and concerning the Plaintiff:

(i)	'A woman accused of leading a cult that has damaged the lives of scores of people is working as a psychologist with vulnerable patients at a community mental health service in Queensland.'
(ii)	'Natasha Lakaev's Universal Knowledge organisation was offering courses until last year that prophesied the world would end in December 2012 and almost everyone except her devotees would die'; and
(iii)	'A former member of her inner circle, Carli McConkey, has told The Sunday Age that Ms Lakaev was physically violent and psychologically manipulative, and had persuaded her followers that she was the Queen of Atlantis, a reincarnation of Jesus Christ, and one of 12 members of the Intergalactic Council of the Universe.'

297         This imputation is of course at the very heart of this action and I have no difficulty in finding that the plaintiff wrongfully indoctrinated people. Given her egregiously untruthful evidence that her group was not a cult in the sense in which that word is ordinarily understood, and the uncontroverted evidence of the defendant and her witnesses to the contrary, I have not the slightest doubt that the plaintiff knowingly and wrongfully indoctrinated people into her bizarre belief system. That her doctrine was bizarre can be seen from the material she produced around the various courses and workshops and from what she wrote in her book, much of which I have set out earlier in these reasons.

298         The philosophy obviously had attraction to seemingly otherwise intelligent and, in most cases, mature individuals, at least until some realised otherwise, however it is not part of my role to investigate the anatomy of a cult. Suffice it to observe that whether a person recognises that something is a cult depends on whether they have insight and that sometimes can be lost, I would think, if the person is comfortable with the beliefs and the lifestyle with which they are living and those thinks fill an emotional or psychological need they may have. Cult members do not have to be unhappy or feel threatened and they might not understand they were being indoctrinated or regard their group to constitute a cult at the time. That certainly accords with the tenor of the evidence of the defendant and her witnesses.

299 Given that I accept the evidence of the defendant and her witnesses and reject that of the plaintiff and her witnesses where their evidence differs, for the reasons that I have explained above, it follows from the evidence of the defendant and her witnesses on this issue that I have set out in these reasons, that I have no doubt that the imputation that the impugned passages bore and were understood to bear, in their natural and ordinary meaning, namely that the plaintiff had wrongfully indoctrinated people, is absolutely true and is justified pursuant to the defence provided pursuant to s 25 of the Act. I so find and hold.

149   No 8/2024

That the plaintiff had breached Australian industrial legislation

300   The case as to this imputation is pleaded in the statement of claim as follows:

"7  The Book Passages and the Article Passages are defamatory of the plaintiff and bore and were understood to bear, in their natural and ordinary meaning that:

…

(h) In respect of those at paragraph 6(a)(i) and (v) that the Plaintiff had breached Australian industrial legislation."

301   Those paragraphs read as follows:

"6  The Book also includes by way of annexures, the following publications of
and concerning the plaintiff:

(a)

An article headed "In thrall to a cult: how the unwary fall victim to mind control" purportedly published by The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper on 17 October 2010 containing the following publications, of and concerning the Plaintiff:

(i)

'Carli McConkey is not mentally ill. Neither drugs nor alcohol has led her to this point. Instead, in 1996 she joined a New Age personal development group called Universal Knowledge, seeking clarity. Once McConkey converted to its aims, the group's leader, Natasha Lakaev, manipulated her, hit her, took hundreds of thousands of dollars from her, and worked her without pay for up to 22 hours a day, seven days a week.'

(v)

'In December 1999, McConkey began working for Lakaev in the office without wages, and also cleaning and maintaining her properties. She and Michael bought a share in Lakaev's company, Universal Knowledge, for $20,000, believing they were buying equity, securing their future. They received nothing in return. Company documents show $420,000 was raised from investors in this manner, and Lakaev admits none have seen a return.'"

302         In continuing to have the defendant work for her on the promise of payment of wages which was not kept and by paying a lump sum of $5,000 on one occasions in lieu of wages, with no deduction for income tax and no payment of superannuation, the plaintiffs conduct would be understood by the ordinary reader of the impugned passage as breaching Australian industrial legislation in my view.

303   It was and is a requirement of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (and later the

Workplace Relations Amendment Act 2005) to not engage the defendant:

• without providing a proper employment contract

• without completing a Tax File Declaration form

• without remunerating them

• without completing payslips

• without overtime for hours worked in excess of normal working hours

• without leave entitlements

150   No 8/2024

• without superannuation

304 Given that I accept the evidence of the defendant and her witnesses and reject that of the plaintiff and her witnesses where their evidence differs, for the reasons that I have explained above, it follows from the evidence of the defendant and her witnesses on this issue that I have set out in these reasons, that I have no doubt that the imputation that the impugned passages bore and were understood to bear, in their natural and ordinary meaning, namely that the plaintiff had breached Australian industrial law, is absolutely true and is justified pursuant to the defence provided pursuant to s 25 of the Act. I so find and hold.

That the plaintiff was a criminal

305   The case as to this imputation was pleaded in the statement of claim as follows:

"7  The Book Passages and the Article Passages are defamatory of the plaintiff and bore and were understood to bear, in their natural and ordinary meaning that:

…
In respect of those at paragraph 5(m), that the Plaintiff was a criminal."

306   That paragraph reads as follows:

"(m) 'She is a criminal. She has physically assaulted people, psychologically
abused people and conned people out of money!'"

307         The evidence establishes that the plaintiff has never been convicted of a crime however to assert that someone is a criminal does not require proof of conviction of an offence if it is established that the person has engaged in conduct which is criminal in nature. The evidence in this case establishes, to my complete satisfaction, that the plaintiff has committed assault and indecent assault and incited others to commit those crimes. She has also unlawfully obtained financial advantage and has possessed, used and supplied an illicit substance. That she has not been convicted of those crimes is not to the point in the context of this imputation.

308 This imputation is in the main covered by the findings and holdings I have already made however, to the extent that it embraces additional matters, given that I accept the evidence of the defendant and her witnesses and reject that of the plaintiff and her witnesses in all cases where their evidence differs, this imputation is absolutely true and is justified pursuant to the defence provided pursuant to s 25 of the Act. I so find and hold.

309   The imputations from the online publications are pleaded as follows:

"7F  The publications the defendant has made of and concerning the plaintiff as pleaded at paragraphs 7A, 7B, 7C, 7D and 7E hereof are defamatory of the plaintiff and bore and were understood to bear, in their natural and ordinary meaning that:

(a)	In respect of those referred to at paragraph 7A(a), 7B(a), 7C(a)(ii), 7D(a) and 7E(a) that the plaintiff is unfit to practise as a psychologist;
(b)	In respect of those referred to at paragraph 7A(b), 7A(d) and 7B(b) that the plaintiff committed acts of abuse against the defendant;
(c)	In respect of those referred to at 7A(d), 7C(a)(i), 7B(b)(i) and 7E(b) that the plaintiff physically abused the defendant;

151   No 8/2024

(d)	In respect of those referred to at 7A(b) that the plaintiff is likely to suffer from narcissistic personality disorder and borderline personality disorder;
(e)	In respect of those referred to at 7A(c) that the plaintiff is a violent extremist;
(f)	In respect of those referred to at 7C(b)(ii) that the plaintiff misused her position as a psychologist to threaten her; and
(g)	In respect of those referred to at 7E(b) that the plaintiff was guilty of abuse and physical assault of the defendant and that she was guilty of such conduct as to warrant her de-registration as a psychologist."

310   Paragraphs 7A, 7B, 7C, 7D and 7E read as follows:

"7A The defendant has also published and continues to publish the following further materials of and concerning the Plaintiff via the website

(a)	"I lost over 13 years in the destructive cult, Universal Knowledge (formerly known as Life Integration Programmes), run by cult leader Natasha Lakaev (a registered Psychologist with AHPRA, Australia)"
(b)	"Myself and scores of others were abused by Natasha Lakaev, who used mind control to yield power, money and glorification within a high demand group. Cult leaders generally display the traits of a charismatic narcissist, with Antisocial, Borderline and Histrionic Personality Disorders"
(c)	A discussion of the Book as: "a gripping account of the brutal impact of spiritual and violent extremism."
(d)	"What at first appeared professional and promising, became a vehicle for psychological and physical abuse."

7B

The defendant has also published and continues to publish the following further materials of and concerning the plaintiff via the section of her website entitled 'Book Reviews' which is viewable at the URL:

(a)

'I was involved with Lakaev's courses close to two decades ago and was absolutely shocked to learn that this woman went from operating her cult to becoming a registered psychologist in Australia (current) and at some stage was even working for Queensland Health as a government-employed psychologist. Unfathomable and this was despite several media exposes on her, an obviously questionable online presence and several complaints to the Queensland Psychology Board and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA). This book reveals it all, providing not only in- depth, clear and explanatory description of how this Australian cult operated but in the final chapters also provides insights into how AHPRA and the Queensland Psychology Board allowed Lakaev to continue with her registration as a psychologist despite what has been presented in front of them.'

(b)

'Carli McConkey has shared her journey into a New age cult with honesty and courage. This book will be invaluable in helping others who have been, or find themselves drawn into what appears to be a group offering courses to benefit their lives, often at a vulnerable time in their life.

152   No 8/2024

Trapped for 13 years in a world of abuse and control Carli bravely tells her story of life in Universal Knowledge and her journey to freedom.'

7C	The defendant has also published and continues to publish of and concerning the plaintiff via the section of her website titled 'My Story' at the URL:
(a) An article headed "Alleged leader of cult works as a psychologist" purportedly published by The Sunday Age and the Sydney Morning Herald on their websites on 16 October 2010 containing the following publications of and concerning the plaintiff:

(i)          'Carli McConkey, has told The Sunday Age that Ms Lakaev was physically violent and psychologically manipulative, and had persuaded her followers that she was the Queen of Atlantis, a reincarnation of Jesus Christ, and one of 12 members of the Intergalactic Council of the Universe.'

(ii)         'Complaints against her by former acolytes have been investigated once by Queensland's health regulator, but no action taken. The national health regulator will not comment except to say Ms Lakaev ''has current registration and is therefore deemed fit to practise'."

(b)

An article headed "Medium, Carli's Story: Exiting a Cult" purportedly published by the Let's Talk About Sects podcast on 30 January 2018 containing the following publications of and concerning the plaintiff:

(i)	'On top of the financial strain, things also often got physical. "When this cult leader was bashing me up, I was feeling like I deserved this.'
(ii)	'My cult leader now as a registered psychologist, threatened that if I did leave, that she would report me to DOCS, Department of Child Safety, and have my children taken away from me 'cos she was going to say that I was an abusive mother and sign off on it as a psychologist.'

7D

The defendant has published and continues to publish the following material of and concerning the plaintiff via her Twitter account at the url:

(a) 'Please join me in demanding that the Australian Health Practitioner Agency (AHPRA) and the health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) de-register a Clinical Psychologist who is an abusive Cult Leader.'

7E

The Defendant has published the following material concerning the Plaintiff
via her Facebook account which is viewable at the URL:

(a)	'Please support this petition to ask the Australian Health Practitioner Registration Agency (AHPRA) and the Health Care Complaints Commission (HCCC) to re-investigate a Clinical Psychologist who has caused significant harm to vulnerable members of the Australian community.'
(b)	'This psychologist "was the President of the Australian Psychological Society from 2009 to 2011´at the time when my cult leader, Natasha Lakaev was investigated as a registered Psychologist for allegations of abuse and physical assault. No wonder these criminals get away

153   No 8/2024

with their crimes when all levels of government and those in power do nothing and let the perpetrators continue to cause further harm to society. Natasha Lakaev is still a registered psychologist.'

That the plaintiff is unfit to practise as a psychologist and warrants deregistration

311         On the basis of the evidence in this case which bears on the plaintiff's character, her beliefs and her conduct, I find that imputations that the plaintiff is unfit as a person to practice as a psychologist and was guilty of abuse and physical assault of the defendant as to warrant her de- registration as a psychologist is, at the very least, substantially true. Whether the Australian Health Practitioner Registration Agency Psychology Board would, as a matter of fact, at the time of the publication of the impugned assertions have deregistered the plaintiff, or now, is not to the point.

312         In my judgment, no reasonable person with knowledge of the findings that I have made against the plaintiff in this action would take the view that she was a fit and proper person to remain registered by any licensing body to provide counselling and treatment to emotionally and/or psychologically vulnerable clients.

That the plaintiff physically abused and committed acts of abuse against the defendant

313        I have already found and held that these imputations are absolutely true. There can be no sensible distinction made between the terms "physical abuse" and "battery".

That the plaintiff is likely to suffer from narcissistic personality disorder and borderline personality disorder

314         No expert evidence was called to establish that the plaintiff had been diagnosed with either of these disorders but the pleaded imputation is not that she does, but that she is likely to. That imputation in turn was derived from the defendant's publication of the words "[c]ult leaders generally display the traits of a charismatic narcissist, with Antisocial, Borderline and Histrionic Personality Disorders". Interestingly the relevant imputation pleaded by the plaintiff was not that she was a cult leader but that "she had wrongly indoctrinated people".

315         In any event, I have found that the plaintiff was a cult leader as well as having wrongfully indoctrinated people. That she is "likely to" suffer from narcissism and personality disorders is, in my view, substantially true without the need for expert evidence. Terms such as schizophrenia, post- traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression and psychopath, which are all forms of psychiatric illnesses or disorders in the expert's lexicon of diagnoses, have become part of ordinary everyday language and it is no stretch of imagination that the ordinary person, understanding all of the evidence I have accepted against the plaintiff, might say of her – "she is likely to be a narcissist" or – "she is likely to have a personality disorder".

316   I find and hold that this imputation is substantially true.

That the plaintiff is a violent extremist

1. Again although, as with all of the pleaded imputations, this one has been admitted by the defendant in her defence, it is not inappropriate to look at the impugned passage. It is "A discussion of the Book as: 'a gripping account of the brutal impact of spiritual and violent extremism.'" The imputation cannot be accepted as being that the plaintiff is a political or religious terrorist. Her ideology, spiritual beliefs and physical practices were however, in my view, so far outside the mainstream as to warrant characterisation as extreme. And they were clearly attended by violence, both physically and culturally. The notion of teaching students on The Survivors courses to shoot firearms was not suggested as being for the purposes of shooting game for food. The clear implication

   154   No 8/2024

   from that practice was that survival in an apocalyptic event was that to survive, a student must know
   how to kill other human beings. This accords with the evidence of the defendant and Dr Del Rae.

318    I find and hold this imputation to be substantially true.

That the plaintiff misused her position as a psychologist to threaten the defendant

319         This imputation is established as absolutely true by the defendant's evidence on the issue, which I accept. Moreover, it is consistent with Ms Townsend's evidence that the plaintiff threatened to report her, as a psychologist, to the Department of Child Services as being an abusive parent. In that case, Ms Townsend's evidence, which I accept, was that the plaintiff went so far as to show her the letter that she threatened that she would send, before taking it back from her.

Conclusion and orders

320 It follows from all that I have said that each of the imputations from the impugned book passages, articles and online publications are true. I have differentiated between the terms "absolutely true" and "substantially true" only as a matter of qualitative emphasis. In each case, in my judgement, the imputations are substantially true (and true in substance and fact), such as to attract the defence of justification provided by s 25 of the Act (and the common law). There is no necessity for me to consider any other of the defendant's pleaded defences. Nor is there any necessity for me to consider any other aspects of the plaintiff's claim. I do not accept the submission of the plaintiff’s counsel that this might be a case where, if I accepted "the evidence of, and on behalf of the defendant, over that of, and on behalf of the plaintiff, that such might only lead to a lesser award of damages rather than the application of any defamation defence in the context of the defendant’s present day publications in light of the plaintiff’s present reputation". It should be clear from the totality of my findings that this is not such a case.

321        I note that in reaching the findings of fact and the findings as to credit that I have, it has not been necessary for me to have recourse to any of the evidence I admitted on the trial de bene esse.

322         I point out that the names of persons referred to in the defendant's book have, in most cases, been fictionalised and do not align with the names of the real persons referred to in the evidence. A list of the real names of the fictitious characters is annexed to these reasons.

323         There will be judgment for the defendant against the plaintiff and subject to any written application by the plaintiff made within 14 days of today, the defendant is awarded costs against the plaintiff of and incidental to the action. Those costs are to be taxed in default of agreement.

324         I note that such costs will be limited to the out-of-pocket expenses that the defendant actually and reasonably incurred in the preparation and execution of her case. Self-represented litigants are not entitled to an order for costs indemnifying them for work that they have done themselves in the preparation and execution of their case: Cachia v Hanes (1994) 179 CLR 403. This position has been justified by the High Court of Australia in light of a number of policy reasons, not least that it would be inherently difficult to quantify the indemnity of lay litigants when it comes to the taxation of costs: Cachia v Hanes at 415.

325         Although self-represented litigants are unable to recover costs, they are generally entitled to compensation for the out-of-pocket expenses that they have actually and reasonably incurred in the course of their case: Von Reisner v Commonwealth (No 2) (2009) 262 ALR 430. The types of out-of- pocket expenses that have been recognised as compensable by Australian Courts include:

• Court filing fees: B v P [2000] FamCA 392.

155   No 8/2024

• Transcript fees: W (deceased) v W [2004] FamCA 319.

• Incidental expenses relating to photocopying, postage etc: Shephard v Blueberry Farms of Australia (Corindi) Ltd (2001) 162 FLR 339.

326        All of these things are ultimately matters for the taxing officer. I mention them to the extent that I have for the very reason that the defendant has been self-represented throughout this action.

327        Any application by either party for costs of and incidental to the preliminary issue in this case, the subject of the judgment of Wood J of 22 September 2023, should be made to her Honour.

156   No 8/2024

This is the annexure referred to in paragraph 320