Current The Alleged Rape of Staffer Brittany Higgins at Parliament House

Remove this Banner Ad

GreyCrow

TheBrownDog
Mar 21, 2016
63,940
98,578
Down South Corvus Tristis
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sturt, Redskins , White Sox
I was thinking the same thing just now.

You'd think that Morrison would have received legal advice on the ramifications of what he planned to say today.

That him and his advisers knew exactly what they were doing.


Might they try and move the trial out of the ACT so that it can be a trial by Judge alone?

'The trial will be held by jury — in the ACT, alleged sex crimes cannot be tried by Judge alone.'
' Prime Minister , you are correct in wanting to issue an apology but it needs to be a blanket, general apology - you cant , you must not mention Miss Higgins in case you prejudice the trial '

''Rightio then''
 

Lady O

Team Captain
Dec 8, 2021
536
795
AFL Club
Essendon
I find the law surrounding rape to be very confusing. An alleged victim can be so drunk that they don't even remember if they had sex. They only have to "feel sore" the next day. The alleged rapist can be equally intoxicated but can be still held responsible. The alleged victim can be agreeable to having sex, but if he/she drops off to sleep during the act, then that can still be rape. The only defence that an alleged rapist can have is that no intercourse occurred.
 

DropBearess

Senior List
Apr 3, 2019
219
614
AFL Club
Adelaide
I watched the PM's apology yesterday. I found his direct and specific inclusion of Ms. Higgins as a victim quite astonishing. In doing so he acknowledged an offence took place.

Surely this was subjudicial in the extreme as the word "alleged" was never used! How did this reference escape SM's advisory team?

The alleged perpetrator has indicated he will plead not guilty. He has not been tried and remains innocent until found guilty. We have heard nothing of his story.

Don't get me wrong here. Not for one moment do l doubt that profound apologies are required for the sordid behaviours inside Parliament House. But to specify one in particular which is before the courts is indicative of a very ignorant PM.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

utility

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 26, 2003
10,616
7,538
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
I watched the PM's apology yesterday. I found his direct and specific inclusion of Ms. Higgins as a victim quite astonishing. In doing so he acknowledged an offence took place.

Surely this was subjudicial in the extreme as the word "alleged" was never used! How did this reference escape SM's advisory team?

The alleged perpetrator has indicated he will plead not guilty. He has not been tried and remains innocent until found guilty. We have heard nothing of his story.

Don't get me wrong here. Not for one moment do l doubt that profound apologies are required for the sordid behaviours inside Parliament House. But to specify one in particular which is before the courts is indicative of a very ignorant PM.
As indicated up-thread it may have been deliberate. The apology is for public consumption, but with the effect of prejudicing a fair an impartial hearing - so the accused 'gets off'.

Procedural fairness is absolutely sacrosanct in my book, else a (connected) judge can 'take matters into their own hands'. That is a frightening prospect. So he should be admonished for making such a statement at this point in time.
 

geeeyejo

Draftee
Nov 18, 2015
8
20
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
I find the law surrounding rape to be very confusing. An alleged victim can be so drunk that they don't even remember if they had sex. They only have to "feel sore" the next day. The alleged rapist can be equally intoxicated but can be still held responsible. The alleged victim can be agreeable to having sex, but if he/she drops off to sleep during the act, then that can still be rape. The only defence that an alleged rapist can have is that no intercourse occurred.

People don’t “nod off” having consensual sex - that’s not a thing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Last edited:

Lebbo73

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 20, 2014
17,409
17,810
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Liverpool

NicNat2TimKelly

Senior List
Oct 17, 2019
289
955
AFL Club
West Coast
What did they discover about Ms Higgins alleged rapist's alleged serious misconduct from their April 4 meeting with the AFP, or elsewhere, that appears to have triggered terminating Ms Higgins alleged rapists employment?

It was about the security breach of accessing the office (drunk) out of hours.

Ms Higgins learned from the chief of staff that the Liberal staffer who had signed her into parliament that night, had agreed to resign that day, on the spot.

This related purely to the security breach and being in the office after hours.


Something else from that news report struck me as strange.

She remembers the man buying “lots of rounds of drinks” at the event before it was suggested he lived in the same direction and his taxi could drop her home on the way.

Instead, he took her to Parliament House.

He said he would get her home but when they roll up outside Parliament House instead and he asks her to get out she obliges rather than asking why the cab isn't taking her home. What I mean is she's portrayed a picture of only sharing a cab with him because he was going her way but that flies in the face of what actually occurred. If this part of her story is on shaky ground what other parts are?
 

jason_recliner

All Australian
Dec 9, 2020
623
833
AFL Club
West Coast
It was about the security breach of accessing the office (drunk) out of hours.




Something else from that news report struck me as strange.



He said he would get her home but when they roll up outside Parliament House instead and he asks her to get out she obliges rather than asking why the cab isn't taking her home. What I mean is she's portrayed a picture of only sharing a cab with him because he was going her way but that flies in the face of what actually occurred. If this part of her story is on shaky ground what other parts are?
I think I recall he told her he needed to get something from Parliament House. But I'm not certain.
 

NicNat2TimKelly

Senior List
Oct 17, 2019
289
955
AFL Club
West Coast
I think I recall he told her he needed to get something from Parliament House. But I'm not certain.

Still would make zero sense. What would he need to get at that hour that couldn't wait until normal working hours? Plus she could have said ... "Fine you run in and grab it while I wait in the cab. I'll only slow you down since I'm so pissed I can hardly walk".
 

jason_recliner

All Australian
Dec 9, 2020
623
833
AFL Club
West Coast
Still would make zero sense. What would he need to get at that hour that couldn't wait until normal working hours? Plus she could have said ... "Fine you run in and grab it while I wait in the cab. I'll only slow you down since I'm so pissed I can hardly walk".
Eh? That makes zero sense. How little do you think Parliament House is? And she was paralytic drunk. He probably said "I need to get something from the office, come in, we'll get an Uber afterwards". She was too dunk to realise he was dodgy.
 
Last edited:

NicNat2TimKelly

Senior List
Oct 17, 2019
289
955
AFL Club
West Coast
Eh? That makes zero sense. How little do you think Parliament House is?

Mate I know how big parliament house is, I've been there FFS. In any case it's irrelevant. They entered through the back entrance which is very close to the ministerial offices including the office of Linda Reynolds.
 

Lady O

Team Captain
Dec 8, 2021
536
795
AFL Club
Essendon
People don’t “nod off” having consensual sex - that’s not a thing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

They usually refer to it as "passing out", which makes the drunken nod off seem more like a 'medical issue'. But even if she was up for it before hand and then "passed out" or simply changed her mind, it is still rape. It's all about consent and if she was too drunk to give consent, then it's still rape.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

jason_recliner

All Australian
Dec 9, 2020
623
833
AFL Club
West Coast
Mate I know how big parliament house is, I've been there FFS. In any case it's irrelevant. They entered through the back entrance which is very close to the ministerial offices including the office of Linda Reynolds.
Maybe she wasn't thinking clearly about the entrance and it's proximity to the ministerial offices at that point in time.
 

Lebbo73

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 20, 2014
17,409
17,810
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Liverpool
They usually refer to it as "passing out", which makes the drunken nod off seem more like a 'medical issue'. But even if she was up for it before hand and then "passed out" or simply changed her mind, it is still rape. It's all about consent and if she was too drunk to give consent, then it's still rape.
What’s rape? He’s claiming that nothing happened.
 

Kurve

Moderator
Dec 27, 2016
19,269
43,066
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs

jason_recliner

All Australian
Dec 9, 2020
623
833
AFL Club
West Coast
His lawyers are lodging an aplplication for a permanent stay on proceedings and a ban on media reporting.

F##k. If this is granted I consider it a direct consequence of ScoMo's comments.
 

Kwality

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2011
39,806
14,901
Trafalgar
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Mclaren Mercedes F1
F##k. If this is granted I consider it a direct consequence of ScoMo's comments.

I'd put my money on what the Judge says: ...
'Chief Justice McCallum issued a serious warning last week in court.

“A man has been accused of a very serious offence, it is an offence that can only be tried with a jury,” she said.

“The laws about contempt are well known in this country.

“Statements made before a criminal trial that might interfere with the administration of justice and, in particular, the ability of an accused man to have a fair trial risk falling in the classification of contempt.”



I'd paraphrase that as this matter is not going to be heard in the court of public opinion.
 

jason_recliner

All Australian
Dec 9, 2020
623
833
AFL Club
West Coast
I'd put my money on what the Judge says: ...
'Chief Justice McCallum issued a serious warning last week in court.

“A man has been accused of a very serious offence, it is an offence that can only be tried with a jury,” she said.

“The laws about contempt are well known in this country.

“Statements made before a criminal trial that might interfere with the administration of justice and, in particular, the ability of an accused man to have a fair trial risk falling in the classification of contempt.”



I'd paraphrase that as this matter is not going to be heard in the court of public opinion.
Exactly. Doesn't get much more contemptuous than Scotty the Ugly Fat Bastard stating in public that Higgins is a rape survivor.
 

utility

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 26, 2003
10,616
7,538
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
I'd put my money on what the Judge says: ...
'Chief Justice McCallum issued a serious warning last week in court.

“A man has been accused of a very serious offence, it is an offence that can only be tried with a jury,” she said.

Wasn't BRE found guilty by a judge and not a jury? Or am I mistaken?

To my knowledge a defendant has the right of election - either judge or jury trial in the case of serious (indictable) offences. In Australia you don't have a right to jury trial for summary offences, whereas in the USA I believe it can be any dispute of $20 or more.

I'd say the decision will come down to backdoor connections in Canberra. You'll get Scomo spouting "rule of law" again after the A-G debacle.

Edit: This on BRE:
 

BFew

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 5, 2017
8,358
26,726
AFL Club
West Coast
Has anyone received the letter from Lehmann's legals yet?

'Mr Lehrmann’s barrister, David Campbell, SC, told the ACT Supreme Court his client’s lawyers would be writing to various media outlets seeking their co-operation to take down various articles referring to the allegations and would be asking for court orders if they didn’t consent.'

“We propose to write to the media today, or at worst tomorrow and give them seven days,” Mr Campbell said. “It is likely we wouldn’t have universal assent from the media for a take-down.”

However, media lawyer Justin Quill said it was “entirely unnecessary and inappropriate” for such an order to be made.'

'The matter will return to court on April 1.'
 

BFew

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 5, 2017
8,358
26,726
AFL Club
West Coast
Wasn't BRE found guilty by a judge and not a jury? Or am I mistaken?
Different rules in the ACT.
Certain categories of crimes can only be a trial by Jury in the ACT.
That's already been discussed earlier in this thread I recall.
 

Remove this Banner Ad