Bruce Lehrmann revealed as man charged with two counts of rape in Toowoomba

Remove this Banner Ad

HurleyHepsHird

Ghost Stories for the End of the World
Oct 2, 2011
6,619
9,209
Between the Lines
AFL Club
West Coast
Will Higgins ever receive justice.

Will Skynews, The HUN, The Australian, Reynolds, the former PMO and the LNP ever face an inquiry or consequences for their hounding of an alleged rape victim or conduct surrounding the alleged assault?

 
I find it astounding that a "risk of self harm" is a reason to apply for a non publication order; either you have a general policy of non publication of names until after trial is done, or you publish all; but just because there is a risk of self harm (which is something that is ever present in times of stress - there always is a risk, that risk may be minimal, moderate, severe or imminent - but it can never be zero)
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Which woman?? The old one? Yes and twice on Sundays.. this one? Interesting case where consent has been given for sex but the issue revolves around a Condom being worn.

How you get to the bottom of it will be something to follow

Brittany Higgins you dolt.
 
I am sick of court procedures being played out in the media.
Internet forums arent far behind.

It would solve a lot of issues surrounding jury pools if there was a total media suppression of the cases until the guilty verdicts, and I'd be happy to have these faces and names broadcast on seven news at 6pm when the guilty comes in a compromise.

That's not to mention the massive reduction in fear of blowback for victims, since their trauma isn't going to be cross examined in the news - they either get the justice they seek or the evidence isn't adequate to convict and the accused isn't smeared.

There's some big powers at play here on at least his side and it's quite worrying.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

It would solve a lot of issues surrounding jury pools if there was a total media suppression of the cases until the guilty verdicts, and I'd be happy to have these faces and names broadcast on seven news at 6pm when the guilty comes in a compromise.

That's not to mention the massive reduction in fear of blowback for victims, since their trauma isn't going to be cross examined in the news - they either get the justice they seek or the evidence isn't adequate to convict and the accused isn't smeared.

There's some big powers at play here on at least his side and it's quite worrying.
I am happy for individuals to be named and the media to report. We need to see the process at work without being totally hidden.

But the media either glorifying (BRS or Pell) or crucifying participants in legal proceedings is a step to far for me.
 
I am happy for individuals to be named and the media to report. We need to see the process at work without being totally hidden.

But the media either glorifying (BRS or Pell) or crucifying participants in legal proceedings is a step to far for me.

What does naming people in the media do? I would think the process for police clearances serves the function of protecting investment in people about to blow up.
 
What does naming people in the media do? I would think the process for police clearances serves the function of protecting investment in people about to blow up.
It is required for openness and transparency.

What isn"t required is the information (be that character references or potential evidence) that leads to the communities judgement.
 
It is required for openness and transparency.

What isn"t required is the information (be that character references or potential evidence) that leads to the communities judgement.

I'm questioning the community benefit of that openness and transparency, it appears to be more of a content filler (and by extension a financial win) for the media groups. Open to anyone walking in, but not to be put on megaphone etc.

I think conviction should be broadcast on loudspeaker, even the entire trial recorded and able to be accessed in the event of a guilty verdict subject to review on sensitive evidence with provisions to keep some parts sealed as appropriate for things like minor identification etc.

I don't see a material gain turning the process of justice into a sideshow for public comment while the public is engaged in administering that justice.

It would defang the process as it could only then be reported in its entirety. Speculation and innuendo falls aside.
 
I'm questioning the community benefit of that openness and transparency
You're not really.

You are questioning HOW and WHY the media reports on certain legal processes and not others and the manner in which it is reported. And I agree. But that is a criticism of media standards in general.

The transparency of the justice system is integral to the public faith in it. Or, as the High Court puts it:

Open justice is one of the fundamental attributes of a fair trial. That the administration of justice must take place in open court is a ‘fundamental rule of the common law’.

Complaints about the selection of cases for highlighting in the media and how it is reported has nothing to do with openness and transparency.

And the simple fact is that an allegation of rape in Parliament House, of a Liberal Party staffer by another, after hours, was ALWAYS going to attract media attention and gossip.

And we gobbled it up.

And frankly, the behaviour of political staffers, Ministers of the Crown, political influencers and others in this sorry saga that started with an alleged rape in Parliament House meets the very definition of 'public interest'.
 
Last edited:
I am sick of court procedures being played out in the media.
Internet forums arent far behind.
Wouldn’t be an issue is Bruce’s lawyer didn’t try to and fail to get a name suppression order on incredibly flimsy grounds.
 
You're not really.

You are questioning HOW and WHY the media reports on certain legal processes and not others and the manner in which it is reported. And I agree. But that is a criticism of media standards in general.

The transparency of the justice system is integral to the public faith in it. Or, as the High Court puts it:

Open justice is one of the fundamental attributes of a fair trial. That the administration of justice must take place in open court is a ‘fundamental rule of the common law’.

Complaints about the selection of cases for highlighting in the media and how it is reported has nothing to do with openness and transparency.

I think the same standard should be for all cases, regardless of who they feature or what car crash rubbernecking momentum a media group might seek to profit on.

I think the access to information had never been greater and in the interests of an uninfluenced and unbiased trial by jury then the case should remain out of the news until after the guilty verdict is returned, upon which the entire trial is released for public record and review.

I suspect that the interest in cases will be less than now meaning most of the media involvement serves to line their pockets at the expense of an unbiased jury pool.

That's not to mention the people who might be headline news when the accusations are made and then page 50 when it's thrown out. They wear that, but the news group pockets the money.
 
I think the access to information had never been greater and in the interests of an uninfluenced and unbiased trial by jury
LOL. Good luck with that. On any trial.

A political staffer allegedly raped his subordinate in the Parliamentary office of the nation's Defence Industry Minister after hours.

THAT on it's own is a story in the public interest.

Suggesting that the story be kept under wraps for 2 years until the conclusion of a criminal trial is unrealistic, let alone jeopardising the safety and welfare of others working at that location.

And you forget the publication of the details of those allegations led to the then Prime Minister commissioning the Australian Human Rights Commission to undertake a detailed and independent Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces which provided evidence of a toxic culture and disgusting behaviours in Parliamentary workplaces. That review reported BEFORE the Lehrmann trial was completed.
 
Last edited:
Reminder that this campaigner was on 180k a year with zero qualifications or experience.

Clearly has some kind of family/party connections.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top