Updated The Bruce Lehrmann Trials * Justice Lee - "Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins."

How long will the jury be out for?

  • Back the same afternoon

    Votes: 12 34.3%
  • One day

    Votes: 12 34.3%
  • Two days

    Votes: 6 17.1%
  • Three to five days

    Votes: 3 8.6%
  • Over a week

    Votes: 2 5.7%

  • Total voters
    35
  • Poll closed .

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #21
Historical Rape Allegation Against Fmr AG Christian Porter
The Alexander Matters matters

Just a reminder, this is the crime board and we need to be aware that there will be victims of crime either watching this thread or engaging in here from time to time. A degree of respect in all discussions is expected.

LINK TO TIMELINE
CJS INQUIRY
FINAL REPORT – BOARD OF INQUIRY – CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Joint media statement – Chief Minister and Attorney-General

LINK TO FEDERAL COURT DEFAMATION PROCEEDINGS
 
Last edited:
I don't understand how a person can be classified as a "victim" before a crime has been proven and/or an accused has been convicted. Therefore the person is a "complainant". Perhaps they could rename her as the Complainants of Crime Commissioner?

It certainly shines a light on the legislation in the ACT.
 
That was also just an example where there is no doubt that a victim exists without a conviction. There are others that won't need the involvement of the Coroner.

The police decide when a crime's been committed and they have a victim. They did in this case.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Did they ? Its for Sofronoff to decide as I see it. The decision to charge Lehrmann is one of the issues yet to be clarified.

I saw that yesterday mentioned in the press. Sofronoff stated he was to examine that aspect of the case but then when he asked lawyers for Whybrow and Drumgold whether they would be making any submissions towards the question, they had none.

The cops don't waste resources compiling briefs unless they're behind charges they raised in the first place. It's my understanding that the AFP raised the charges against Lehrmann not the DPP.
 
Did they ? Its for Sofronoff to decide as I see it. The decision to charge Lehrmann is one of the issues yet to be clarified.
Hopefully this will be clarified when members the AFP come before the inquiry next week.
 
Hopefully this will be clarified when members the AFP come before the inquiry next week.

This tends to confirm the AFP raised the charges. Tedeschi for Drumgold is arguing that if it wasn't for all the publicity around the case, the matter would have been dealt with by the AFP in the same way it had some 250 sexual assault matters, that was in effect by ignoring them.

Looks to me after a bit more research that the AFP wanted to give the right appearances of acting in raising charge but hoping or expecting the DPP would reject the case to prosecute at trial.

What a snakepit.

 
No, on occasion they decide if they think a crime has been committed. And in fact it appears they did not think that in this case.

I don't think that can be said to be true. This is their media release.

Man to face court for alleged historical sexual assault

A 26-year-old man has been summonsed to appear before the ACT Magistrates Court for an alleged sexual assault in 2019.
www.policenews.act.gov.au

www.policenews.act.gov.au
'Man to face court for alleged historical sexual assault
Publish date:Friday, 6 August 2021, Publish time:2:50pm
A 26-year-old man has been summonsed to appear before the ACT Magistrates Court for an alleged sexual assault in 2019.
Police will allege the man had sexual intercourse with a woman without consent at Parliament House on Saturday, 23 March 2019.
Detectives from ACT Policing’s Criminal Investigations - Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Team, the specialist team dedicated to investigating sexual assaults in the ACT, first received a report in April 2019.
The investigation remained open and in February 2021 a formal complaint was made. Detectives have since spoken to a number of witnesses and collected evidence as part of the investigation.
Officers today (Friday, 6 August 2021) served the man’s legal representative with a summons to appear before the ACT Magistrates Court on 16 September 2021.
The man will face one charge of sexual intercourse without consent. The maximum penalty for this offence is 12 years imprisonment.


Media enquiries
Police Media — (02) 5126 9070, act-police-media@afp.gov.au'
 

Drumgold needs the break imo. I hope he goes somewhere he feels safe and can kick back through the inquiry when the AFP appears, stay away through the fallout, process and come back when it dies down.

It may even be better to leave the ACT at the end of it, I won't be surprised if it isn't so temporary.

"He sought leave, it came from him as a request."
 
Drumgold needs the break imo. I hope he goes somewhere he feels safe and can kick back through the inquiry when the AFP appears, stay away through the fallout, process and come back when it dies down.

It may even be better to leave the ACT at the end of it, I won't be surprised if it isn't so temporary.

"He sought leave, it came from him as a request."
Possibly Peter Principle at play, pity ;)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I don't think that can be said to be true. This is their media release.

Man to face court for alleged historical sexual assault

A 26-year-old man has been summonsed to appear before the ACT Magistrates Court for an alleged sexual assault in 2019.
www.policenews.act.gov.au

www.policenews.act.gov.au
'Man to face court for alleged historical sexual assault
Publish date:Friday, 6 August 2021, Publish time:2:50pm
A 26-year-old man has been summonsed to appear before the ACT Magistrates Court for an alleged sexual assault in 2019.
Police will allege the man had sexual intercourse with a woman without consent at Parliament House on Saturday, 23 March 2019.
Detectives from ACT Policing’s Criminal Investigations - Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Team, the specialist team dedicated to investigating sexual assaults in the ACT, first received a report in April 2019.
The investigation remained open and in February 2021 a formal complaint was made. Detectives have since spoken to a number of witnesses and collected evidence as part of the investigation.
Officers today (Friday, 6 August 2021) served the man’s legal representative with a summons to appear before the ACT Magistrates Court on 16 September 2021.
The man will face one charge of sexual intercourse without consent. The maximum penalty for this offence is 12 years imprisonment.


Media enquiries
Police Media — (02) 5126 9070, act-police-media@afp.gov.au'

We are in the middle of an inquiry where the Director of the DPP has made claims that the AFP attempted to persuade him not to proceed with the case. Those claims are in fact the initial basis for the inquiry to begin with. Claims have also been made that detectives on the case said they would resign, or be made physically ill if a guilty verdict was found.

I don't think a media release holds any water as an accurate reflection of the AFP's thoughts on the case given what has transpired at the inquiry. But I guess we will hear from the AFP in due course (next week I think?).
 
Drumgold needs the break imo. I hope he goes somewhere he feels safe and can kick back through the inquiry when the AFP appears, stay away through the fallout, process and come back when it dies down.

It may even be better to leave the ACT at the end of it, I won't be surprised if it isn't so temporary.

"He sought leave, it came from him as a request."

Yeah people are reading too much into this.

It has also been misreported that he was stood down.

Who wouldn't expect him to take leave after what has occurred? Also consider the fact he went straight from a complex and high profile case which would have been non-stop work for 12 + months, straight into the inquiry. Doubt he has truly had a day off since early 2021.
 
Yeah people are reading too much into this.

It has also been misreported that he was stood down.

Who wouldn't expect him to take leave after what has occurred? Also consider the fact he went straight from a complex and high profile case which would have been non-stop work for 12 + months, straight into the inquiry. Doubt he has truly had a day off since early 2021.
Yes, he needs a holiday.
 
I don't think a media release holds any water as an accurate reflection of the AFP's thoughts on the case given what has transpired at the inquiry. But I guess we will hear from the AFP in due course (next week I think?).

Whether it is or isn't the whole story, the AFP have owned the charges.
 
Yeah people are reading too much into this.

It has also been misreported that he was stood down.

Who wouldn't expect him to take leave after what has occurred? Also consider the fact he went straight from a complex and high profile case which would have been non-stop work for 12 + months, straight into the inquiry. Doubt he has truly had a day off since early 2021.

'On Friday, ACT Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury declined an invitation to express confidence in his Director of Public Prosecutions, saying only that the Sofronoff inquiry "should be allowed to continue its work".'

 
Yeah people are reading too much into this.

It has also been misreported that he was stood down.

Who wouldn't expect him to take leave after what has occurred? Also consider the fact he went straight from a complex and high profile case which would have been non-stop work for 12 + months, straight into the inquiry. Doubt he has truly had a day off since early 2021.

Drumgold's probably blown his career up as well whether he was right or wrong and he needs to settle down a bit plan his next move. It's no small thing to go up against the AFP, even for the Director of Public Prosecutions.

He may even by now be a bit paranoid and it's probably very understandable.
 
'On Friday, ACT Attorney-General Shane Rattenbury declined an invitation to express confidence in his Director of Public Prosecutions, saying only that the Sofronoff inquiry "should be allowed to continue its work".'


I hadn't seen that. But the AG is at a hiding to nothing answering that question at this time. It was the correct response.

The removal of a DPP is difficult. I think Shane Drumgold's position is untenable, but not because he would meet the statutory criteria for removal. I think the relationship between himself and the AFP is damaged beyond repair politically and practically.

Him going on leave at this time though I don't think is evidence either way however. It could be, but it is to be expected in the circumstances without anything nefarious going on.
 
Drumgold's probably blown his career up as well whether he was right or wrong and he needs to settle down a bit plan his next move. It's no small thing to go up against the AFP, even for the Director of Public Prosecutions.

He may even by now be a bit paranoid and it's probably very understandable.

Well if it wasn't understandable before he gave evidence at the inquiry it certainly is now.

His career as a prosecutor is probably finished as you say. He will be fine finding work as a defence barrister.
 
Well if it wasn't understandable before he gave evidence at the inquiry it certainly is now.

His career as a prosecutor is probably finished as you say. He will be fine finding work as a defence barrister.

Drumgold would have known the dangers he was putting himself in well before the inquiry, and he did it anyway.

He certainly hasn't played it safe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top