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

[Crankyhawk]

Statements made by Justice Lee during this week's Wilkinson hearing on costs about the major credibility issues of the testimonies of BOTH Bruce Lehrmann and Brittany Higgins have had a flow on effect of Senator Linda Reynolds defamation action against her former staffer Ms Higgins and her partner David Sharaz for comments made on social media.

WA Supreme Court Justice Marcus Solomon had urged Reynolds and Higgins/Sharaz to take their dispute to mediation rather than bogging down the courts with a trial process. That mediation hearing was scheduled to take place on 5 March.

However, on hearing the credibility concerns raised by Justice Lee, Justice Solomon called an urgent meeting of the parties yesterday, saying the Lee's decision and findings in the Lehrmann defamation trial (which Lee said will be delivered 'sometime in March') may have implications for the mediation and floated the possibility that it may need to be postponed until after that takes place.

“From reading the pleadings in this matter, my understanding is that there is not an insignificant amount of overlap between the issues,” Justice Solomon said. “I will repeat now, ad nauseam, that we must create the best environment for the resolution of this matter in an out-of-court settlement.”

Linda Reynolds’ lawyer (who was initially vehemently opposed to mediation) said they were opposed to a delay of the mediation saying that there was every chance Lee’s findings may not be handed down until late March, and calendar conflicts may prevent the mediation from proceeding in April also saying he did not believe there was a significant overlap between the 2 defamation actions, saying "The Lehrmann trial centred around events of that evening (the alleged rape), and we’re not concerned with that. We’re concerned about the events that followed involving my client, and we see all those matter as not being directly impacted by those findings.”

However, both Higgins and Sharaz's lawyers agreed with Justice Solomon's concerns and his assessment that the mediation should be deferred- stating that facts and credibility matters likely to be addressed by Lee’s findings were relevant and could enhance the success of mediation.

Justice Solomon said the parties should discuss the matter and come back with a decision on a possible deferral.

Pretty obvious to me that there is a tactical issue at the heart of this rather than diary conflicts.

Linda Reynolds wants the mediation to take place BEFORE the Lehrmann defamation action is decided because her lawyers believe that gives her the strongest chance of a successful result in her damages claim. Higgins and Sharaz lawyers believing that their clients' defence is best served by having mediation AFTER Justice Lee delivers his findings on the Lehrmann defamation action.

Judge calls urgent hearing amid fears Lehrmann trial may derail Reynolds, Higgins peace talks

Long-awaited peace talks between WA Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds, her former staffer Brittany Higgins and partner David Sharaz may be postponed.

www.theage.com.au

If I am interpreting what you are saying it’s that both sets of lawyers in the Reynolds/Higgins case believe that the outcome of the current lerhmann case is to help the Higgins side re credibility?

 

[Festerz]

If I am interpreting what you are saying it’s that both sets of lawyers in the Reynolds/Higgins case believe that the outcome of the current lerhmann case is to help the Higgins side re credibility?

Not really. My interpretation is solely around how they will settle costs/damages in the mediation process assuming they agree that defamation occurred. Remembering that Defamation is assumed to have occurred under Australian defamation law and it is up to the publisher(s) to prove that it didn’t.

And which side thinks they have most to gain from that negotiation taking place with uncertainty over the outcome of the Lehrmann defamation action remaining but the Judge damning the credibility of both parties.

My interpretation is akin to a stud poker game with both sides knowing what they have in their hands but unsure of what’s in the middle.

My interpretation could be dead wrong though.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Not really. My interpretation is solely around how they will settle costs/damages in the mediation process assuming they agree that defamation occurred. Remembering that Defamation is assumed to have occurred under Australian defamation law and it is up to the publisher(s) to prove that it didn’t.

And which side thinks they have most to gain from that negotiation taking place with uncertainty over the outcome of the Lehrmann defamation action remaining but the Judge damning the credibility of both parties.

My interpretation is akin to a stud poker game with both sides knowing what they have in their hands but unsure of what’s in the middle.

My interpretation could be dead wrong though.

It seems that Reynolds side don’t want the “middle” to be revealed while Higgins side does so there appears some agreement that the middle (current proceeding) will help Higgins and hinder reynolds

 

[FIGJAM]

What’s “the middle” here?

Wouldn’t Higgins have already presented evidence in the Lehrmann v 10 trial to provide evidence of “bullying” as stated by Sharaz?

 

[Crankyhawk]

What’s “the middle” here?

Wouldn’t Higgins have already presented evidence in the Lehrmann v 10 trial to provide evidence of “bullying” as stated by Sharaz?

The middle is how we were referencing the current defamation action and the outcome of it(as currently unknown but would appear a shared belief that once known it will help Higgins and go against Reynolds but this is not certain)

 

[FIGJAM]

The middle is how we were referencing the current defamation action and the outcome of it(as currently unknown but would appear a shared belief that once known it will help Higgins and go against Reynolds but this is not certain)

I doubt Justice Lee can find anything other than there was no obstruction of justice by Reynolds and that Higgins lacks credibility (on the obstruction of justice claims anyway), so I doubt it will help anyone other than Reynolds.

Ultimately, 10 and Wilkinson's lawyers had every chance to present even the most basic skerrick of evidence showing "bullying" by Reynolds (as per Sharaz's tweets that have him in the gun) and they have presented nothing. There's no "middle" here; all cards are on the table.

I feel like the lawyers of Sharaz and Higgins are prepared to cough up a settlement via mediation, but are preferring holding off as a bit of a Hail Mary that Justice Lee finds in full favour of Higgins' reliability in the obstruction of justice claims. Reynolds' lawyer just wants to get it done and dusted.

 

[Festerz]

The middle is how we were referencing the current defamation action and the outcome of it(as currently unknown but would appear a shared belief that once known it will help Higgins and go against Reynolds but this is not certain)

Yep.

It was Justice Solomon who made the suggestion that the mediation should be held over until after the Lehrmann trial was finished on hearing what Lee said about the lack of credibility of both Lehrmann and Higgins on many aspects of their evidence. So it's clear that he thinks the findings of the Lehrmann defamtion trial WILL influence the determination of Senator Higgins defamation action (and he will be the one deciding if it goes to court should conciliation fail). The case has been listed for the Supreme Court of WA for a six-week trial in July in the event mediation is unsuccessful.

And while Justice Lee was scathing in his assessment of the reliability of both Lehrmann and Higgins he also reminded the court on Wednesday what he has said previously - that just because someone is shown to have been untruthful on some matters does not imply that they have stretched the truth on the matters of most significance to the defamation trial.

Also impt to understand that although she was obviously a central figure and witness in events, Higgins is not a party to the Lehrmann court action - targeted solely at Ten and Lisa Wilkinson.

Lee's role in deciding the Lehrmann defamation claims against the Project TV broadcast and the subsequent Logies speech is to determine the most likely truth behind matters central to the case (in particular the allegation that Lehrmann did have sexual intercourse with Ms Higgins without consent in the early hours of Sunday morning 23 March 2019). He will not just be relying on the claims and evidence of Lehrmann and Higgins but the substantial evidence of others, including security guards, other staffers, a forensic toxicologist, trauma counsellor and CCTV footage in relation to events preceding and immediately after the alleged rape.

 

[FIGJAM]

And while Justice Lee was scathing in his assessment of the reliability of both Lehrmann and Higgins he also reminded the court on Wednesday what he has said previously - that just because someone is shown to have been untruthful on some matters does not imply that they have stretched the truth on the matters of most significance to the defamation trial.

Also impt to understand that although she was obviously a central figure and witness in events, Higgins is not a party to the Lehrmann court action - targeted solely at Ten and Lisa Wilkinson.

Lee's role in deciding the Lehrmann defamation claims against the Project TV broadcast and the subsequent Logies speech is to determine the most likely truth behind matters central to the case (in particular the allegation that Lehrmann did have sexual intercourse with Ms Higgins without consent in the early hours of Sunday morning 23 March 2019). He will not just be relying on the claims and evidence of Lehrmann and Higgins but the substantial evidence of others, including security guards, other staffers, a forensic toxicologist, trauma counsellor and CCTV footage in relation to events preceding and immediately after the alleged rape.

Some good points there, Festerz.

Still, it's critically important to distinguish between the two primary issues:

1. The probability and credibility of the rape allegation;
2. The probability and credibility of the obstruction of justice allegation.

While Reynolds' lawyer is mentioning the first part, they reality is that Soloman is mostly only worrying about the second component.

One of the few crossovers on Higgins' "credibility" is the "plying of alcohol" as described by lip reader Reedy, when Bruce bought her 2 drinks and was no more encouraging of her drinking than the other blokes at the night.

The other issues are how much she did or didn't remember from the night, but even if she wasn't completely slaughtered, we can all agree that she was pissed.

My take is that unless she had a lucid dream, she's not psychopathic enough to make this s**t up on the rape allegation. But after the event and under the influence of a David Sharaz, she may have developed various sensations into untruths with respect to the obstruction of justice claims.

 

[spike101]

Yep.

It was Justice Solomon who made the suggestion that the mediation should be held over until after the Lehrmann trial was finished on hearing what Lee said about the lack of credibility of both Lehrmann and Higgins on many aspects of their evidence. So it's clear that he thinks the findings of the Lehrmann defamtion trial WILL influence the determination of Senator Higgins defamation action (and he will be the one deciding if it goes to court should conciliation fail). The case has been listed for the Supreme Court of WA for a six-week trial in July in the event mediation is unsuccessful.

And while Justice Lee was scathing in his assessment of the reliability of both Lehrmann and Higgins he also reminded the court on Wednesday what he has said previously - that just because someone is shown to have been untruthful on some matters does not imply that they have stretched the truth on the matters of most significance to the defamation trial.

Also impt to understand that although she was obviously a central figure and witness in events, Higgins is not a party to the Lehrmann court action - targeted solely at Ten and Lisa Wilkinson.

Lee's role in deciding the Lehrmann defamation claims against the Project TV broadcast and the subsequent Logies speech is to determine the most likely truth behind matters central to the case (in particular the allegation that Lehrmann did have sexual intercourse with Ms Higgins without consent in the early hours of Sunday morning 23 March 2019). He will not just be relying on the claims and evidence of Lehrmann and Higgins but the substantial evidence of others, including security guards, other staffers, a forensic toxicologist, trauma counsellor and CCTV footage in relation to events preceding and immediately after the alleged rape.

Nice to know that Higgins is now a “Senator”

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Date set for Bruce Lehrmann’s lawyers to quiz witnesses about alleged Toowoomba rape

Former Liberal staffer denies two counts of raping a woman in October 2021, with the case yet to proceed to trial

www.theguardian.com

 

[Festerz]

Contact between journalist and head of inquiry into Bruce Lehrmann's prosecution gave rise to an impression of bias, court rules

The ACT's former top prosecutor Shane Drumgold has succeeded in challenging some findings made against him in an inquiry into the prosecution of former Liberal staffer Bruce Lehrmann.

www.abc.net.au

 

[QuietB]

Contact between journalist and head of inquiry into Bruce Lehrmann's prosecution gave rise to an impression of bias, court rules

The ACT's former top prosecutor Shane Drumgold has succeeded in challenging some findings made against him in an inquiry into the prosecution of former Liberal staffer Bruce Lehrmann.

www.abc.net.au

Does Reynolds have to give the $900k back?

 

[Festerz]

Does Reynolds have to give the $900k back?

It was $90k for alleged defamation and no.

ACT Government looking like idiots again - remembering that they were arguing that Sofronoff's numerous phone calls and lunch dates with The Australian's Janet Albrechtsen during his 'independent' inquiry, did not provide evidence of bias. And they have been ordered to pay the bulk of Drumgold's legal costs as well.

 

[QuietB]

It was $90k for alleged defamation and no.

ACT Government looking like idiots again - remembering that they were arguing that Sofronoff's numerous phone calls and lunch dates with The Australian's Janet Albrechtsen during his 'independent' inquiry, did not provide evidence of bias. And they have been ordered to pay the bulk of Drumgold's legal costs as well.

Absolute shambles

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

It was $90k for alleged defamation and no.

ACT Government looking like idiots again - remembering that they were arguing that Sofronoff's numerous phone calls and lunch dates with The Australian's Janet Albrechtsen during his 'independent' inquiry, did not provide evidence of bias. And they have been ordered to pay the bulk of Drumgold's legal costs as well.

I genuinely feel for Drumgold here. He tried to do the right thing and law enforcement + political class on both sides closed ranks. The ACT government ****ed up big time.

 

[QuietB]

I genuinely feel for Drumgold here. He tried to do the right thing and law enforcement + political class on both sides closed ranks. The ACT government ****ed up big time.

It is difficult to understand how one junior staffer could create this much mayhem (assuming Lehman is just a junior staffer).

None of it makes any sense at all.

 

[Festerz]

As was correctly pointed out in the crime thread - the finding in relation to Sofronoff was 'apprehended bias' with the Judge finding Sofronoff's 273 interactions with the columnist, Janet Albrechtsen, gave the impression he “might have been influenced by the views held and publicly expressed” by her.

Details of the extent and manner of exclusive communication between Sofronoff and the Australian's Janet Albrechtsen as alleged by Drumgold's counsel and summarised in yesterday's judgement makes for interesting reading:

As is noted in the judgment at [147-148], it was 'not only was the quantity of communications, which Mr Sofronoff had with Ms Albrechtsen, much greater than those which he had with other journalists, but, significantly, the nature of the communications he had with Ms Albrechtsen were quite different to those which he had with other journalists.'

Sofronoff's dealings with every other journalist was through a general media email address. Janet Albrechtsen was the only one with a constant direct line to him during the hearings - through four different email addresses.

'In particular, no other journalist: was given the opportunity toengage directly with Mr Sofronoff; had lunch with Mr Sofronoff; had a choice of email addresses by which they might communicate with Mr Sofronoff; assisted the Inquiry by providing information to it in the manner in which Ms Albrechtsen had; was provided by Mr Sofronoff with documents related to the Inquiry; was provided with drafts of the final report of the Inquiry'

Impt to note that Drumgold didn't come out of this totally vindicated. Justice Kaye found that the majority of findings made by Sofronoff against Drumgold were not unreasonable from a legal viewpoint. Unsurprisingly the Australian's Janet Albrechtsen has leapt on this fact in her column today:





But what Albrechtsen fails to report is that yesterday's judgement confirms that her close engagement with the 'Independent' Chair of the Review of the Lehrmann rape trial has led to deep questions as to his motives and impartiality and so undermines the whole basis of the Sofronoff Report.

IMHO her behaviour and that of The Australian newspaper throughout the Lehrmann - Higgins saga has been shameful.

The full judgement is here for anyone interested:

https://www.courts.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/2408129/Drumgold-No-3.pdf

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

It is difficult to understand how one junior staffer could create this much mayhem (assuming Lehman is just a junior staffer).

None of it makes any sense at all.

I'd say probably an attempted coverup/ass covering is the cause.

Either that or his parents are important in some way or another.

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

As was correctly pointed out in the crime thread - the finding in relation to Sofronoff was 'apprehended bias' with the Judge finding Sofronoff's 273 interactions with the columnist, Janet Albrechtsen, gave the impression he “might have been influenced by the views held and publicly expressed” by her.

Details of the extent and manner of exclusive communication between Sofronoff and the Australian's Janet Albrechtsen as alleged by Drumgold's counsel and summarised in yesterday's judgement makes for interesting reading:

As is noted in the judgment at [147-148], it was 'not only was the quantity of communications, which Mr Sofronoff had with Ms Albrechtsen, much greater than those which he had with other journalists, but, significantly, the nature of the communications he had with Ms Albrechtsen were quite different to those which he had with other journalists.'

Sofronoff's dealings with every other journalist was through a general media email address. Janet Albrechtsen was the only one with a constant direct line to him during the hearings - through four different email addresses.

'In particular, no other journalist: was given the opportunity toengage directly with Mr Sofronoff; had lunch with Mr Sofronoff; had a choice of email addresses by which they might communicate with Mr Sofronoff; assisted the Inquiry by providing information to it in the manner in which Ms Albrechtsen had; was provided by Mr Sofronoff with documents related to the Inquiry; was provided with drafts of the final report of the Inquiry'

Impt to note that Drumgold didn't come out of this totally vindicated. Justice Kaye found that the majority of findings made by Sofronoff against Drumgold were not unreasonable from a legal viewpoint. Unsurprisingly the Australian's Janet Albrechtsen has leapt on this fact in her column today:

View attachment 1920031



But what Albrechtsen fails to report is that yesterday's judgement confirms that her close engagement with the 'Independent' Chair of the Review of the Lehrmann rape trial has led to deep questions as to his motives and impartiality and so undermines the whole basis of the Sofronoff Report.

IMHO her behaviour and that of The Australian newspaper throughout the Lehrmann - Higgins saga has been shameful.

The full judgement is here for anyone interested:

https://www.courts.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/2408129/Drumgold-No-3.pdf

The Australian are on a tear at the moment, given the whole Rolfe fiasco.

 

[western royboy]

It is difficult to understand how one junior staffer could create this much mayhem (assuming Lehman is just a junior staffer).

None of it makes any sense at all.

I have a journo contact who assured me that Lehrmann is a nobody and despite conspiracy theories to the contrary it’s just a cover up due to the election that has gone on and on and the hole has got deeper and deeper

 

[Festerz]

I have a journo contact who assured me that Lehrmann is a nobody and despite conspiracy theories to the contrary it’s just a cover up due to the election that has gone on and on and the hole has got deeper and deeper

The fact that he is a an inconsequential nobody and yet has been provided with substantial financial and media support for political reasons IS the conspiracy theory isn't it?

 

[QuietB]

The fact that he is a an inconsequential nobody and yet has been provided with substantial financial and media support for political reasons IS the conspiracy theory isn't it?

The story is again about Morrison. He will do absolutely anything - no matter the cost to anyone - to advance his own aspirations.

The question is how long will everyone cover for him. And why bother?

 

[western royboy]

The fact that he is a an inconsequential nobody and yet has been provided with substantial financial and media support for political reasons IS the conspiracy theory isn't it?

No the conspiracy theories were;

1. He was a US spy

2. He was related to Morrison

3. His parents were well connected

 

[Festerz]

Frankly I couldn't give a toss about where alleged multiple rapist Bruce Lehrmann came from, who his parents are or how he wormed his way into Ministerial Offices of senior Federal Ministers.

The real concern for all of us is, or should be, revelations around how the strong financial and political support for his legal battles have undermined faith in the integrity and transparency of our justice system.

Great op piece on this by Geoffrey Watson - former counsel assisting the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption and a director of the Centre for Public Integrity

It is getting worse, not better – and there is no end in sight.

I am referring to Justice Stephen Kaye’s damning decision on the subject of Walter Sofronoff’s conduct and report of an “inquiry into the criminal justice system”. The background was the rape prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann – a charge Lehrmann steadfastly denies and upon which he was not convicted. The damage caused by that night in Canberra continues to spread. Justice Kaye has found that it was reasonable to apprehend that Sofronoff was biased against Lehrmann’s prosecutor, Shane Drumgold SC, when Sofronoff made his harsh findings adverse to Drumgold.

Sofronoff’s inquiry was set up to get to the bottom of problems in the criminal justice system, but the inquiry itself was compromised by bias. Confidence in the legal system is founded upon an assumption of independent, bias-free decision-making. The judgment of Justice Kaye tells us that assumption is false – the conduct and result of Sofronoff’s inquiry shatters whatever confidence there was in the system.

The law was not the only important institution shown to be flawed – so was the fourth estate, our free press. Not only did the commission bellyflop, it went down together with our “national broadsheet”, the Australian.

Worth a read:

The Sofronoff saga has shattered whatever confidence we had in our legal system. Here’s what went wrong | Geoffrey Watson

Millions of dollars were spent on the failed inquiry. But things were awry from the start

www.theguardian.com

 

[western royboy]

Frankly I couldn't give a toss about where alleged multiple rapist Bruce Lehrmann came from, who his parents are or how he wormed his way into Ministerial Offices of senior Federal Ministers.

The real concern for all of us is, or should be, revelations around how the strong financial and political support for his legal battles have undermined faith in the integrity and transparency of our justice system.

Great op piece on this by Geoffrey Watson - former counsel assisting the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption and a director of the Centre for Public Integrity

It is getting worse, not better – and there is no end in sight.

I am referring to Justice Stephen Kaye’s damning decision on the subject of Walter Sofronoff’s conduct and report of an “inquiry into the criminal justice system”. The background was the rape prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann – a charge Lehrmann steadfastly denies and upon which he was not convicted. The damage caused by that night in Canberra continues to spread. Justice Kaye has found that it was reasonable to apprehend that Sofronoff was biased against Lehrmann’s prosecutor, Shane Drumgold SC, when Sofronoff made his harsh findings adverse to Drumgold.

Sofronoff’s inquiry was set up to get to the bottom of problems in the criminal justice system, but the inquiry itself was compromised by bias. Confidence in the legal system is founded upon an assumption of independent, bias-free decision-making. The judgment of Justice Kaye tells us that assumption is false – the conduct and result of Sofronoff’s inquiry shatters whatever confidence there was in the system.

The law was not the only important institution shown to be flawed – so was the fourth estate, our free press. Not only did the commission bellyflop, it went down together with our “national broadsheet”, the Australian.

Worth a read:

The Sofronoff saga has shattered whatever confidence we had in our legal system. Here’s what went wrong | Geoffrey Watson

Millions of dollars were spent on the failed inquiry. But things were awry from the start

www.theguardian.com

Agree entirely but what will happen? Absolutely nought