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:
Something in an article today, that hasn't been quoted in here.

And now i find that the "closed ranks" quote was first reported 7 days ago in the Murdoch media.

www.crikey.com.au

ACT top prosecutor Shane Drumgold stood aside

Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Williamson SC will step into the top job until June, as the Lehrmann inquiry continues.
www.crikey.com.au www.crikey.com.au

'ACT top prosecutor Shane Drumgold stood aside'​

UPDATED: 9.50AM, MAY 18'

'Mr Drumgold last week told the inquiry his team had “closed ranks” against police because they believed officers had lost objectivity in the matter.'

indaily.com.au

Top prosecutor takes leave as Lehrmann inquiry continues - InDaily

indaily.com.au indaily.com.au

Sofronoff Inquiry: Political pressure a worry, says ACT DPP Shane Drumgold SC​

6:43AM MAY 11, 2023
...
Mr Drumgold said that during the inquiry his team had “effectively closed ranks” and stopped communicating with police.

Mr Sofronoff asked why police speaking to defence lawyers was an “anomaly” or suspicious, and pointed out even if police were conferring with defence, there was nothing police could tell defence that would be helpful without it also being disclosed to the prosecution.

“I’m completely blind as to what’s going on,” Mr Drumgold said. “What I’m seeing is what’s breaking the surface, and I don’t know what’s happening underneath the surface.

“I’ve had a year and a half of starting from the outset of police passionately telling me to agree with them that this matter shouldn’t proceed.”
...'
 
jason_recliner said:
BREAKING

ACT chief prosecutor Shane Drumgold replaced amid inquiry into Bruce Lehrmann's trial
Click to expand...


Kurve said:
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."
Click to expand...
Exactly - he sought 4 weeks leave. And who can blame him. His Deputy has been appointed to act in his position until his return on 13 June. As per normal PS arrangements.

The statement that he was 'replaced' is unprofessional mis-reporting and has since been corrected by the ABC - but unsurprisingly latched on to by the usual suspects.

FwXTnlgaAAAQDQS
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Big_Birdy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Drumgold's been a prosecutor for over twenty years, four in the job as Director of the DPP. He's been weakened considerably imo and the establishment has got it in for him but he's no slouch.

This might seem a bit random atm but he's got a lot more in common with Lehrmann's original lawyer John Korn than people realise at this stage imo and I won't be surprised if at some point in the future, we hear Korn senior offer something of support.
 
Kurve said:
Drumgold's been a prosecutor for over twenty years, four in the job as Director of the DPP. He's been weakened considerably imo and the establishment has got it in for him but he's no slouch.

This might seem a bit random atm but he's got a lot more in common with Lehrmann's original lawyer John Korn than people realise at this stage imo and I won't be surprised if at some point in the future, we hear Korn senior offer something of support.
Click to expand...

I'd be stunned after Korn delivered him the mother of all blasts re the Higgins speech.
 
Anyone think the ABC will be able to rely on a public interest defence in this defamation case?

'ABC to rely on ‘public interest’ defence in Bruce Lehrmann defamation case'​

'12:28PM MAY 19, 2023'

'The ABC will rely on a new public interest defence in its defamation battle against Bruce Lehrmann, arguing the broadcast of Brittany Higgins’ National Press Club address was of importance to Australians because it concerned the “safety of persons in Parliament House”.

The public broadcaster’s defence, released on Friday, also argued Mr Lehrmann had no grounds for defamation as he was not named during the broadcast.
...
Further, the ABC argued if, as declared in Mr Lehrmann’s statement of claim, it was “notorious” he was the person accused and charged with Ms Higgins’ assault then “the matters complained of would not have caused, and were not likely to cause, serious harm to Lehrmann’s reputation.”

The ABC also outlined reasons for the broadcast being in the public’s interest, including that it concerned former prime minister Scott Morrison’s response to an allegation of rape in Parliament House.

The broadcaster also argued it concerned the forthcoming federal election and the “work of Ms Higgins as an advocate for survivors of sexual assault and her treatment by members of the public, the media and others.”

Further, it said the matter was in the public interest as it related to “the circumstances of child sexual abuse and the trauma caused by such abuse; the relationship between perpetrators of child sexual abuse and survivors of such abuse; and the Government’s response to the issue of abuse, the adequacy of funding for preventive education and the need for legislative change in respect of the perpetrators of abuse.”

The defence also referenced a text exchange between Ms Higgins and former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce, after Mr Morrison learnt of the alleged sexual assault. In the messages, Mr Joyce described Mr Morrison as “a hypocrite and a liar”.
...'
 
BFew said:
Anyone think the ABC will be able to rely on a public interest defence in this defamation case?

'ABC to rely on ‘public interest’ defence in Bruce Lehrmann defamation case'​

'12:28PM MAY 19, 2023'

'The ABC will rely on a new public interest defence in its defamation battle against Bruce Lehrmann, arguing the broadcast of Brittany Higgins’ National Press Club address was of importance to Australians because it concerned the “safety of persons in Parliament House”.

The public broadcaster’s defence, released on Friday, also argued Mr Lehrmann had no grounds for defamation as he was not named during the broadcast.
...
Further, the ABC argued if, as declared in Mr Lehrmann’s statement of claim, it was “notorious” he was the person accused and charged with Ms Higgins’ assault then “the matters complained of would not have caused, and were not likely to cause, serious harm to Lehrmann’s reputation.”

The ABC also outlined reasons for the broadcast being in the public’s interest, including that it concerned former prime minister Scott Morrison’s response to an allegation of rape in Parliament House.

The broadcaster also argued it concerned the forthcoming federal election and the “work of Ms Higgins as an advocate for survivors of sexual assault and her treatment by members of the public, the media and others.”

Further, it said the matter was in the public interest as it related to “the circumstances of child sexual abuse and the trauma caused by such abuse; the relationship between perpetrators of child sexual abuse and survivors of such abuse; and the Government’s response to the issue of abuse, the adequacy of funding for preventive education and the need for legislative change in respect of the perpetrators of abuse.”

The defence also referenced a text exchange between Ms Higgins and former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce, after Mr Morrison learnt of the alleged sexual assault. In the messages, Mr Joyce described Mr Morrison as “a hypocrite and a liar”.
...'
Click to expand...

Possibly. If I remember correctly (big if), I think the public interest test only requires a reasonable belief that the defamatory statements were true? I think there may also be a proportionality test involved?

What I have bolded however seem to range from difficult to very weak arguments to make on their face, all with glaring problems.
 
FWIW the ABC have chosen to run the public interest line in the defamation case with Heston Russell.

www.smh.com.au

ABC drops truth defence in ex-commando’s defamation suit

Heston Russell is suing the ABC for accusing him of being involved in killing an Afghan prisoner. The broadcaster is no longer seeking to prove that claim is true.
www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au

'Senior journalists Mark Willacy and Josh Robertson, who wrote the stories which Mr Russell claims implied he was involved in the death of an Afghan prisoner, will be called.

ABC head of investigations and current Affairs Jo Puccini, ABC investigations senior reporter Dan Oakes and ABC investigations journalist Alexandra Blucher are also expected to give evidence when the matter goes to trial in late July'
 
"if, as declared in Mr Lehrmann’s statement of claim, it was “notorious” he was the person accused and charged with Ms Higgins’ assault then “the matters complained of would not have caused, and were not likely to cause, serious harm to Lehrmann’s reputation" This seals it for me.

As for public interest, YES. Allegations of criminal and other gross misconduct in property paid for and owned by the Australian public? Applicants will have to demonstrate it is not in the public interest.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

jason_recliner said:
"if, as declared in Mr Lehrmann’s statement of claim, it was “notorious” he was the person accused and charged with Ms Higgins’ assault then “the matters complained of would not have caused, and were not likely to cause, serious harm to Lehrmann’s reputation" This seals it for me.

As for public interest, YES. Allegations of criminal and other gross misconduct in property paid for and owned by the Australian public? Applicants will have to demonstrate it is not in the public interest.
Click to expand...
Your opinion or a legal opinion of public interest in a defamation case?
 
Kwality said:
Your opinion or a legal opinion of public interest in a defamation case?
Click to expand...

I think a new rule has come in regards public interest which was raised at the inquiry, I came to it late and was a bit baffled as to why there was so much focus on it questioning Whybrow, who admitted it. Then Tedeschi dropped it which I perceived to be on a win. It was curious but might make a bit more sense now.

There was no press on it so I can't link it in.

Aside jason_recliner thinking on the matter makes sense.
 
Kurve said:
I think a new rule has come in regards public interest which was raised at the inquiry, I came to it late and was a bit baffled as to why there was so much focus on it questioning Whybrow, who admitted it. Then Tedeschi dropped it which I perceived to be on a win. It was curious but might make a bit more sense now.

There was no press on it so I can't link it in.
Click to expand...
Following detailed consideration over several years Australian Attorneys-General agreed to amendments to defamation law in 2021 in relation to the public interest test that were implemented from late 2022. Information on the change and what it means (from an SA perspective where I am located - but as it is a uniform change across all jurisdictions the main points are relevant to the Lehrmann actions) is outlined here:

hwlebsworth.com.au

Introducing the new public interest defence - HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

Defamation law in Australia has undergone significant change over the last couple of years, in particular since June 2018, when the Council of Attorneys General convened the Defamation Working Party (DWP) to undertake a national review of the model defamation provisions across Australia.1 Two...
hwlebsworth.com.au hwlebsworth.com.au
 
Interestingly, my reference to Alice in Wonderland yesterday morning in this thread, has been echoed by Whybrow in an interview today, as reported in two articles tonight in The Australian.

Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland: What is a fair trial? - Nyaaya

We see Alice giving evidence as a witness in a trial to decide whether the Knave of Hearts is guilty of stealing the tarts.
nyaaya.org

'Lisa Wilkinson’s Logies speech ‘kept Bruce Lehrmann out of jail’, says lawyer Steven Whybrow'​

'By JANET ALBRECHTSEN'​

'UPDATED 10:49PM MAY 19, 2023, FIRST PUBLISHED AT 9:30PM MAY 19, 2023'

'“...

Alice in Wonderland​

Perceptions be damned. Whybrow’s sharp mind and brave soul kicked in when he saw what Lehrmann was facing.

“The Project went to air in February 2021, and unless you’re living under a very heavy rock, or had been stuck overseas during the pandemic – and even then you would not have failed to have been aware of this allegation, or this – from the media’s perspective – story,” he says.

What made it a very important matter for us to act for Bruce was, without having met him, without knowing anything about the case, as at the time we were asked to act for him, certainly my perception, was that this was ‘Alice in Wonderland’. Sentence first or verdict first, trial later.

“There was so much material out there that was just simply ‘he’s guilty’ and we’ve just got to go through this process of a trial. I saw that as a significant undermining of the rule of law and the presumption of innocence and due process, and I wanted to be part of an attempt to at least give this man a fair trial in the face of what I and many other people had considered was such adverse publicity that he could never actually get a fair trial.
...'

‘Verdict first, trial later’: rule of law under threat, says Bruce Lehrmann’s lawyer Steven Whybrow SC​

The presumption of innocence and the right to due process have been dangerously warped by the #MeToo movement, Bruce Lehrmann’s lawyer Ste#metooybrow SC has claimed, in his first interview since Mr Lehrmann went on trial over Brittany Higgins’ rape allegations.

“This was ‘Alice in Wonderland’. Sentence first or verdict first, trial later,” Mr Whybrow says of the pre-trial publicity around the case.
...'
 
Last edited:
BFew said:
Anyone think the ABC will be able to rely on a public interest defence in this defamation case?

'ABC to rely on ‘public interest’ defence in Bruce Lehrmann defamation case'​

'12:28PM MAY 19, 2023'

'The ABC will rely on a new public interest defence in its defamation battle against Bruce Lehrmann, arguing the broadcast of Brittany Higgins’ National Press Club address was of importance to Australians because it concerned the “safety of persons in Parliament House”.

The public broadcaster’s defence, released on Friday, also argued Mr Lehrmann had no grounds for defamation as he was not named during the broadcast.
...
Further, the ABC argued if, as declared in Mr Lehrmann’s statement of claim, it was “notorious” he was the person accused and charged with Ms Higgins’ assault then “the matters complained of would not have caused, and were not likely to cause, serious harm to Lehrmann’s reputation.”

The ABC also outlined reasons for the broadcast being in the public’s interest, including that it concerned former prime minister Scott Morrison’s response to an allegation of rape in Parliament House.

The broadcaster also argued it concerned the forthcoming federal election and the “work of Ms Higgins as an advocate for survivors of sexual assault and her treatment by members of the public, the media and others.”

Further, it said the matter was in the public interest as it related to “the circumstances of child sexual abuse and the trauma caused by such abuse; the relationship between perpetrators of child sexual abuse and survivors of such abuse; and the Government’s response to the issue of abuse, the adequacy of funding for preventive education and the need for legislative change in respect of the perpetrators of abuse.”

The defence also referenced a text exchange between Ms Higgins and former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce, after Mr Morrison learnt of the alleged sexual assault. In the messages, Mr Joyce described Mr Morrison as “a hypocrite and a liar”.
...'
Click to expand...
The ABC has a re ent history of losing defamation case after defamation case. I’ll back them in to be defeated again.
Poorly managed organisation who know that it doesn’t cost them, only the taxpayer
 
Wooden Robot said:
The ABC has a re ent history of losing defamation case after defamation case. I’ll back them in to be defeated again.
Poorly managed organisation who know that it doesn’t cost them, only the taxpayer
Click to expand...

What cases have they lost recently and since the new public interest defence?
 
Kurve said:
What cases have they lost recently and since the new public interest defence?
Click to expand...
Maybe
  • Suitcases
  • Glasses cases
  • Cases of chardonnay; and
  • the odd Nutcase or two
But lost defamation cases since the new public interest defence?

I daresay that since the new public interest defence laws came into being, maybe only Lehrmann has been stupid enough to try and beat them.

The Andrew Laming defamation case four tweets sent on March 28, 2021, was just prior to the new defamation public interest defence laws.
In any case, the legal action was not against the ABC, but against one of it's employees (Louise Milligan)

www.afr.com

Andrew Laming defamation case costs ABC nearly $200,000

ABC managing director David Anderson confirmed the defamation case involving Four Corners reporter Louise Milligan has cost the public broadcaster $184,000 to date.
www.afr.com www.afr.com

'Andrew Laming defamation case costs ABC nearly $200,000'​

'Oct 26, 2021 – 8.00pm'

'Dr Laming launched defamation action against Milligan personally in May alleging she defamed him in four tweets sent on March 28, 2021. The ABC was not party to the suit.'

'Mr Anderson said the consent orders were made on August 11, with judgment in Dr Laming’s favour, with $79,000 in damages, $30,000 in Dr Laming’s legal costs, with other costs around $75,000.'

'Mr Anderson said he received advice from the ABC general counsel on Dr Laming’s action as well as receiving advice from external legal experts on June 18 suggesting it would be difficult for the ABC to resist the claim it was vicariously liable for the conduct of its journalists on social media.

Mr Anderson confirmed he informed the board of the decision to indemnify Ms Milligan.'
 
FWIW:
lsj.com.au

Legal issues in the Lehrmann defamation case - Law Society Journal

An overview of the legal issues in the high profile defamation case against Lisa Wilkinson, Network Ten, News Corp Australia and journalist Samantha Maiden.
lsj.com.au lsj.com.au
MAR 14, 2023 4:04 PM

Bruce Lehrmann has filed defamation claims against four respondents – Lisa Wilkinson, Network Ten, journalist Samantha Maiden and News Corp Australia – over their initial reporting of Brittany Higgins’ allegations of rape in February 2021.

The ABC does not get a mention here that includes this:
'Due to the date of publication, the new public interest defence is not available in this case.'

Is there a timing issue that applies to Wilkinson et al, that does not apply to the ABC case?
 
What version of Legal Aid is funded in the ACT?

' ''Mr Lehrmann revealed for the first time that when he tried to get legal assistance for his defence, Legal Aid ACT insisted it would not allow Ms Higgins to be challenged in court as a liar, but simply “perhaps mistaken about versions of events”.

Mr Lehrmann told The Weekend Australian he sacked Legal Aid ACT after the agency demanded he adopt a conciliatory defence strategy that was completely at odds with his account of the events that occurred in senator Linda Reynolds’ ministerial office in the early hours of March 23, 2019.

Mr Lehrmann said a solicitor at the agency told him “it was up to the CEO of Legal Aid in terms of the broader tactics of the case and he was going to say that she’s not a liar but was mistaken about aspects of the version of events”.

Mr Lehrmann said the agency also rejected Mr Whybrow as “too aggressive” to take on the case.

The solicitor told him the agency would not fund Mr Whybrow as his counsel in the trial because “Legal Aid didn’t like the way Mr Whybrow practices or the way he operates”.

Mr Whybrow ultimately took on the case pro bono after Mr Lehrmann refused to accept the Legal Aid conditions.

A spokesperson for Legal Aid ACT declined to comment.'


Unfortunately Legal Aid ACT is not in Mr Sofronoffs remit (to my knowledge).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Bunk Moreland
Cup Day gang rape of minors, 1976
Replies
2
Views
436
Bunk Moreland
Bunk Moreland
Mitchell Madness
Justice for Jari
Replies
5
Views
392
Mitchell Madness
Mitchell Madness
Aristotle Pickett
Russell Brand faces allegations of rape, sexual assaults & abuse
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
238
Views
25K
jason_recliner
J
Truckosaurus
Solved Zoologist Adam Britton pleads guilty to dozens of charges incl bestiality & torture rape of pet dogs - NT
2 3 4 5
Replies
104
Views
8K
Poppy Penny
P
J
Shyanne-Lee Tatnell Missing for Four Days
Replies
22
Views
2K
jason_recliner
J
Kurve
Current London Cop Admits 24 Counts of Rape - Discovered through Sarah Everard murder probe * 30 years jail
Replies
10
Views
776
Kurve
Kurve
Kurve
  • Poll
Current Andrew Tate Arrested * Charged with Human Trafficking, Rape & Forming an Organised Crime Group
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
234
Views
22K
Bostonian
Bostonian
Back
Top