Historical rape allegation against the Attorney-General Christian Porter

Remove this Banner Ad

Alleged incident occurred in January 1988 after they danced at the Hard Rock Cafe.

It's hard to believe that the fact the Hard Rock Cafe didn't actually open until April 1989 (15 months later) hasn't been commented on after almost 400 posts.




Of course maybe she mixed up which hotel they went to but for a 17 and 16 year old to enter that would've necessitated fake ID or lax security.


It's been mentioned. I think it is more likely she was drunk and forgot which venue/s she visited, rather than forgot whether or not she was raped.
 
Are you sure?

At #268 I linked to two articles without making any comment. I was sure linking those articles would solicit a comment but nada.

Search the thread for the word "rock" as in Hard Rock Cafe and apart from my latest two posts and #268 there's nothing.

I guess it was you who mentioned it then. What do you think it means?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

What do you think it means?

Her own parents were concerned she made the allegations up, we then find out the venue they visited immediately prior didn't exist, if they went somewhere else they needed fake ID because they were underage, Porter vehemently denies the allegations and is suing the ABC for defamation.

What do you think it means?

shrug.gif
 
Alleged incident occurred in January 1988 after they danced at the Hard Rock Cafe.

It's hard to believe that the fact the Hard Rock Cafe didn't actually open until April 1989 (15 months later) hasn't been commented on after almost 400 posts.




Of course maybe she mixed up which hotel they went to but for a 17 and 16 year old to enter that would've necessitated fake ID or lax security.

This highlights the problem in dealing with incomplete information out of context. Did she just mis-remember the name of a place she actually went to, or is it a sign that her whole story is fictional? And we outsiders look at the questions through our own biases....

PS. Teenager with fake ID is not the most startling aspect of the story!
 
Her own parents were concerned she made the allegations up, we then find out the venue they visited immediately prior didn't exist, if they went somewhere else they needed fake ID because they were underage, Porter vehemently denies the allegations and is suing the ABC for defamation.

What do you think it means?

View attachment 1078901

Not much.

If she was drunk it's entirely plausible that she mixed venue names up. I've been out and the next day not known everywhere I visited. I started clubbing at 14, we needed fake IDs then, but not necessarily at 16 / 17. Sometimes we'd get in without the ID, sometimes we wouldn't. Maybe they had fake IDs and used them, maybe they didn't have them and didn't need them. Maybe they went out with a group of older uni-aged students and blended in?
 
Not much.

If she was drunk it's entirely plausible that she mixed venue names up. I've been out and the next day not known everywhere I visited. I started clubbing at 14, we needed fake IDs then, but not necessarily at 16 / 17. Sometimes we'd get in without the ID, sometimes we wouldn't. Maybe they had fake IDs and used them, maybe they didn't have them and didn't need them. Maybe they went out with a group of older uni-aged students and blended in?

Sounds like you're coming from the position that the allegations are definitely true requiring you to force things that don't make sense at face value to fit.
 
This highlights the problem in dealing with incomplete information out of context. Did she just mis-remember the name of a place she actually went to, or is it a sign that her whole story is fictional? And we outsiders look at the questions through our own biases....

PS. Teenager with fake ID is not the most startling aspect of the story!

There was a place called Hard Rock Oz operating at the time and in the area, so it might have been that one. I can't supply a link because I heard it on TV and can't recall which program it was.
 
Sounds like you're coming from the position that the allegations are definitely true requiring you to force things that don't make sense at face value to fit.

It's no secret that I think it's highly likely Porter did it, and extremely unlikely Thornton was lying about it for 30 years.

As for going out under age, and getting the venue wrong after a drunk night out, I don't understand why you consider those significant causes of doubt.
 
There was a place called Hard Rock Oz operating at the time and in the area, so it might have been that one. I can't supply a link because I heard it on TV and can't recall which program it was.

I think you mean Oz Rock Cafe which was created as a rip off of the Hard Rock Cafe.


 
Last edited:
As for going out under age ...

They were both under 18 and on a supervised debating trip. She said they went to the Hard Rock Cafe (which didn't exist). He brought her back to her student accommodation and placed her in a bath (only problem being those student quarters only have showers) and he shaved her legs. Then 6 years after he raped her she contacted him and they went out to dinner.

He said it didn't happen. I'm inclined to believe Porter at the moment.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

That's probably it. Do you know exactly where Oz Rock Cafe was back then?

Kings Cross.

Business name not registered until June 1991.

First mention in the papers is May 1991 probably about it's forthcoming opening.

 
Last edited:
Kings Cross.

Business name not registered until June 1991.

First mention in the papers is May 1991 probably about it's forthcoming opening.


Presumably that information was checked before I heard it, why would someone put that out there as an alternative if it wasn't there? It seems silly.
 
They were both under 18 and on a supervised debating trip. She said they went to the Hard Rock Cafe (which didn't exist). He brought her back to her student accommodation and placed her in a bath (only problem being those student quarters only have showers) and he shaved her legs. Then 6 years after he raped her she contacted him and they went out to dinner.

He said it didn't happen. I'm inclined to believe Porter at the moment.

This is why we need an inquiry.

Porter's schoolmates and girlfriends could be asked if he used to shave his legs.

The room Thornton stayed in (or plans if it no longer exists) could be inspected to see if it has a bath (or shower / tub combination).

Debating students and supervisors (teachers?) could be asked about extra-curricular / recreational activities and the level of supervision.

The contents of the dossier could be reviewed by mental health professionals (and others as appropriate).

The parents could be asked why they consider the alleged rape unlikely.

Thornton's friends could be asked about the history of her allegations.

Porter's ex-girlfriends could be asked if he has a history of sexual violence. Did one give him a friendship bracelet or similar to remind him not to kiss other girls?

Did Thornton contact Porter and ask him to dinner with her alone, or did they end up at the same dinner in a group situation?

At the moment there is just so much that is second and third-hand hearsay and speculation. Formal investigation and documented findings are required.
 
Last edited:
These days yes. 33 years ago much rarer. Computers/scanners/printers are much better now.

Disagree with this. Back then (I am the same age as both Porter and the victim) a photocopy of a learners permit (which was paper) altered with correction fluid would get you in anywhere even if obviously only 16. Now, it's all much stricter with ID cards with security features, scanned at venues.
 
This is why we need an inquiry.

Porter's schoolmates and girlfriends could be asked if he used to shave his legs.

The room Thornton stayed in (or plans if it no longer exists) could be inspected to see if it has a bath (or shower / tub combination).

Debating students and supervisors (teachers?) could be asked about extra-curricular / recreational activities and the level of supervision.

The contents of the dossier could be reviewed my mental health professionals (and others as appropriate).

The parents could be asked why they consider the alleged rape unlikely.

Thornton's friends could be asked about the history of her allegations.

Porter's ex-girlfriends could be asked if he has a history of sexual violence.

Did Thornton contact Porter and ask him to dinner with her alone, or did they end up at the same dinner in a group situation?

At the moment there is just so much that is second and third-hand hearsay and speculation. Formal investigation and documented findings are required.
Him having a history of shaving his legs is no more proof that he did it than ex-gfs testifying he wasn't violent is proof that he didn't IMO!
 
Him having a history of shaving his legs is no more proof that he did it than ex-gfs testifying he wasn't violent is proof that he didn't IMO!
... but it does prove he's not fit to be A-G. ;)

Evidence is taken within context and corroborated with other evidence. That's why sworn testimony is presented as evidence. If a witness (or accused) provides evidence that conflicts with other evidence, fair chance they are telling pork pies or is at a minimum unreliable.
 
Him having a history of shaving his legs is no more proof that he did it than ex-gfs testifying he wasn't violent is proof that he didn't IMO!

Agreed. Unfortunately at this point in time it is nearly impossible to 'prove' or 'disprove' anything. But witness testament that does or does not support the dossier contents or statements by Porter would influence the balance of probabilities. And also inform voters in future elections.
 
... but it does prove he's not fit to be A-G. ;)

Evidence is taken within context and corroborated with other evidence. That's why sworn testimony is presented as evidence. If a witness (or accused) provides evidence that conflicts with other evidence, fair chance they are telling pork pies or is at a minimum unreliable.

I thought he shaved her legs ....
 
Agreed. Unfortunately at this point in time it is nearly impossible to 'prove' or 'disprove' anything. But witness testament that does or does not support the dossier contents or statements by Porter would influence the balance of probabilities. And also inform voters in future elections.

I just can't see how any kind of inquiry is going to produce a result that will change anyone's current views. Most will judge it as a "good" or "bad" result based on whether it confirms what they think now....
 
I just can't see how any kind of inquiry is going to produce a result that will change anyone's current views. Most will judge it as a "good" or "bad" result based on whether it confirms what they think now....

If he doesn't stand down, I don't think an inquiry, whether a fit and proper for the role of Attorney General test or other can be avoided.

Lawyers call for Attorney-General Christian Porter to be subjected to the same standard of accountability as others in the legal profession
7.30
Laura Tingle and James Elton
Posted 6ddays ago, updated 5ddays ago

Prominent lawyers are calling for Attorney-General Christian Porter to be subjected to the same codes of conduct as many others in the legal profession, as Prime Minister Scott Morrison continues to reject calls for an independent inquiry into the serious allegation that, as a 17-year-old, Mr Porter raped a 16-year-old girl in 1988 — an allegation which he strenuously denies.
But there is increasing disquiet in the legal community about the Prime Minister's stance.
This disquiet has nothing to do with any suggestion of criminal action by Mr Porter, but to the damage being done to the role of Attorney-General, and through it our legal institutions, when such a grave allegation is left hanging unresolved over the country's first law officer.
Sydney barrister Tom Brennan suggests that, rather than Mr Porter being subjected to a different standard to the rest of the community, the government is asserting that the first law officer need not face the scrutiny faced by Australians in professions across the entire community — which includes the professional conduct regimes faced by lawyers.

"There's a whole range of different standards that apply to different Australians working in different jobs," Mr Brennan told 7.30.
"We lawyers are subject to Professional Regulation, [which includes] where the regulator may look at things that have nothing to do with our practice of law, or if they reflect on our suitability to practice.
"It's undoubtedly the case that the Law of Professional Regulation recognises that conduct of the kind of subject to this allegation may constitute professional misconduct, in that it renders the person unsuitable to work as a professional.
"So, it's something that could possibly be investigated by the legal regulator."

'Fit and proper' person for the profession
Two Melbourne academics — including Julian Webb from Melbourne Law School — are now in the process of lodging a complaint against Mr Porter.
"The proposal is that we put a request in to the legal practice board of WA to consider whether Christian Porter should be considered as a fit and proper person to be a member of the legal profession," Mr Webb told 7.30.
"A number of us involved in this would have liked to have seen further inquiries of and by the Solicitor-General, as has been suggested.
"But if that is not the move forward, then this seems to us to be one of the few remaining options to ensure accountability, and to ensure that the Federal Attorney-General — the Commonwealth's most senior officer — is held to the same standards of accountability as any other lawyer in Australia.
"That is a job for the legal practice boards."

Investigating an allegation of child sexual assault
In the same way, teachers and others who deal with children are subject to working with children regimes that demand any complaint of sexual assault must be investigated by a body which would have the powers of a Royal Commission.
The woman at the centre of the historical rape allegation faced by the Attorney-General was 16 at the time of the alleged assault — meaning she was a child in the eyes of the law," Mr Brennan said.
"The state and territories have very special regimes for dealing with allegations of child sexual assault.
"They require that a whole raft of people report any allegation — not only allegations that have been investigated by police.
"It makes findings on the balance of probabilities not to a criminal standard.
"That's not a regime which applies to Commonwealth Ministers, but it's certainly a regime which the rule of law in Australia recognises and enforces.
"Every teacher, every childcare worker, every priest, every rabbi, every mufti is subject to a regime of mandatory reporting and mandatory investigation of any allegation of child sexual assault."

Lawyer takes issue with Morrison's response
Victorian barrister Jess Moir says there were problems in the signals the Prime Minister was sending in his treatment of the allegation.
"To say that an allegation of abuse, of rape, is only relevant for the purposes of the police is to deny your own responsibility — the responsibility that all of us have — to work on creating a culture that keeps everybody safe," she told 7.30.
"The issue that I take with Scott Morrison's response is that he said very publicly that he declined to read the dossier of materials that was provided to him, and instead he elected to be briefed on the contents of that dossier.
"In doing that, he turned away from the substance of the allegation in the alleged victim's own words.
"It just undermines everybody's sense that if they raise a complaint, that leaders will listen to them and care about what they have to say."

Code of conduct for ministers
Finally, there is the question of a code of standards that doesn't apply to average Australians, but does apply to a special group — the Ministerial Code of Conduct.
The updated set of standards released by Scott Morrison when he became Prime Minister said the Australian people deserved a government that would act with integrity and in the best interests of the people they serve.
But the Prime Minister continued to only address the potential criminality involved in the allegation, and not the broader implications of the controversy.
"He's a fine Attorney-General and a fine Minister for Industrial Relations and he is an innocent man under our law," Mr Morrison said.

 
If he doesn't stand down, I don't think an inquiry, whether a fit and proper for the role of Attorney General test or other can be avoided.

I'm not saying there won't be an inquiry, I'm saying if there is it won't change too many minds. A lot of people seem very certain of guilty or innocence, often based on wildly irrelevant "evidence."

If there is an inquiry and there is a verdict a lot will react as "vindicated" or "travesty" depending on their own bias. It will be an inquiry that the "winners" accept and the "losers" dispute. Not to many of us will say "aaaah so that's what really happened...."
 
I'm not saying there won't be an inquiry, I'm saying if there is it won't change too many minds. A lot of people seem very certain of guilty or innocence, often based on wildly irrelevant "evidence."

It won't change my mind on whether the AG is suitable for the job, just that we're here and the question really needs to be tested is enough IMO to believe that he isn't and we need him to step down.

Imagine he was put through the test and as I think he might, he failed it? That could possibly be an even worse state of affairs.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top