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

[Kurve]

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

 

[Festerz]

The summary of the Review findings as published (bolding and italics are mine):

Summary of Conclusions

In conclusion, I summarise the conclusions that I have reached, in respect of the three grounds of review relied on by the plaintiff:


In respect of ground 2 — (that the conduct of the first defendant of the Inquiry gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias) — I have concluded that the amount, context, nature, manner and content of the communications, that occurred between Mr Sofronoff and Ms Janet Albrechtsen of The Australian newspaper, were such that a fair-minded lay observer, acquainted with the material objective facts, might reasonably have apprehended that Mr Sofronoff, in determining, in Chapters 4,5 and 6 of the Report, the issues specified by paragraph (c) of the Terms of Reference of the Inquiry, might have been influenced by the views, held and publicly expressed by Ms Albrechtsen, concerning the conduct by the plaintiff of the prosecution of the criminal proceedings against Mr Lehrmann. Accordingly, ground 2 of the application for judicial review must succeed.


In respect of ground 3 - (legal unreasonableness), the plaintiff submitted that eight findings, by the first defendant in the Report of the Inquiry, were legally unreasonable. I have concluded that the plaintiff has not established that seven of those findings were legally unreasonable. I have concluded that the finding, by the first defendant, that the plaintiff had engaged in grossly unethical conduct in his cross-examination of SenatorLinda Reynolds, was legally unreasonable. Accordingly, ground 3 succeeds in respect of that finding.


In respect of ground 4 (failure to accord natural justice), the plaintiff contended that the first defendant failed to accord him natural justice by failing to give him a fair hearing in respect of three findings, made by the first defendant in the Report. I have concluded that the plaintiff has not established a failure of natural justice in respect of two of those findings. I have concluded that the first defendant failed to afford the plaintiff natural justice in respect of the finding, in the Report, that the plaintiff’s statement to the Chief Police Officer on 8 December 2022, concerning his lack of knowledge about the Freedom of Information application relating to the 1 November 2022 letter, was false. Accordingly, ground 4 succeeds in respect of that finding.


As I have noted earlier, as the Report of the first defendant did not, of itself, have any legal effect or consequences, relief in the form of the prerogative writ of certiorari is not available to the plaintiff. However, in a case such as this, it is appropriate to grant declaratory relief, reflecting the conclusions that I have just stated. I shall hear from counsel in respect of the precise formulation of that relief

Full report here:

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

It's true that the Review found that seven of Sofronoff's findings were not 'legally unreasonable' and so Drumgold's reputation remains damaged. But I wonder how much stock will be placed in the Sofronoff Report and its findings by the ACT Government given what the review had to say about Sofronoff's interactions with Albrechtsen - a columnist for the Australian Newspaper and with a clear agenda in this matter.

My guess is that they, and many others after reading the Review findings, will be left with a strong suspicion (or confirmation of a previously held suspicion) that Sofronoff may have chosen a side during what was supposed to be an independent process and as such his full report is tainted with a perception of bias.

 

[FIGJAM]

No surprises on the other sideshow:

https://www.news.com.au/national/courts-law/linda-reynolds-defamation-action-could-bankrupt-brittany-higgins-partner-david-sharaz/news-story/098189b7333a283fe0eb326791c16291

There was never going to be a result while Justice Lee's verdict on the obstruction of justice claims is still out. Higgins and Sharaz still thinks they're a chance on this side of the trial, but if they watched it, I think Lee will give an alternate point of view on that. This would stop any settlement condition of contrition and/or apology, that I'm sure Reynolds' team would be chasing.

Which has a flow on to with regards to other negotiations, as I don't think coin specifically that Reynolds is chasing, but rather control of the narrative. She's sick of being called a "bully", an obstructer of justice, unsupportive etc. She might be a bit of a ballbreaker, but some of the shade that gets thrown her way is unreasonable IMHO.

 

[Festerz]

 

[Festerz]

 

[Lebbo73]

 

[Kurve]

The trial wasn't completed and the jury was discharged.

 

[CD Xbow]

I thought that Guardian piece was a pretty good summary of the problems with his behvoir. I'm glad to know others are as incredulous as I.

At least we know where Wally is. Most likely you will find him on the phone to Janet, or sharing a Chardy with her at lunch or emailing/texting her. I do wonder if Wally's willy was doing a bit too much 'thinking'.

 

[Satan]

Brittany Higgins was hospitalised in Perth hours after forced mediation talks failed to resolve a defamation case with her former employer Senator Linda Reynolds.
Ms Higgins, a former Liberal staffer who three years ago went public with allegations of rape against a then-colleague in 2019, was treated at Royal Perth Hospital late on Tuesday following a long day of court-ordered mediation talks in the case being brought against her by Ms Reynolds.

A source told the Daily Telegraph Ms Higgins was at the hospital on Tuesday night, and discharged on Wednesday afternoon.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

Brittany Higgins was hospitalised in Perth hours after forced mediation talks failed to resolve a defamation case with her former employer Senator Linda Reynolds.
Ms Higgins, a former Liberal staffer who three years ago went public with allegations of rape against a then-colleague in 2019, was treated at Royal Perth Hospital late on Tuesday following a long day of court-ordered mediation talks in the case being brought against her by Ms Reynolds.

A source told the Daily Telegraph Ms Higgins was at the hospital on Tuesday night, and discharged on Wednesday afternoon.

how can you have a forced mediation talk? Can you not decline to mediate? I thought they were voluntary?

you either want to mediate or you dont? or you continue on either prosecuting or defending?

 

[Ballarat Bob]

If it's not resolved via mediation it goes to trial. I didn't think it was forced though just that the judge had asked both parties to try mediation before it goes further.
Brittany might be thinking of how much this may cost her , Sharaz can claim bankruptcy easy enough seeing he hasn't worked for a while unless he has a lot of assets.
Not sure where Brittany's pay out is or what's left of it is. If she's moved it to France I am not sure if any French court would order her to hand it over because of a judgement in a civil case in Australia ?
And unlike Lehmann she doesn't have someone offering to pay all her legal bills if she wants to take it further.
I get the impression that Reynolds is happy to turn the screws here and take this all the way if she doesn't get what she wants. If the Brittany's funds are overseas and they can't be recovered from Australia the Reynolds could 'win' but end up out of pocket.
Not sure on the legalities of not paying up in a civil case and whether any other further legal action can be taken ?

 

[campbell]

disgusting process.

 

[FIGJAM]

If it's not resolved via mediation it goes to trial. I didn't think it was forced though just that the judge had asked both parties to try mediation before it goes further.
Brittany might be thinking of how much this may cost her , Sharaz can claim bankruptcy easy enough seeing he hasn't worked for a while unless he has a lot of assets.
Not sure where Brittany's pay out is or what's left of it is. If she's moved it to France I am not sure if any French court would order her to hand it over because of a judgement in a civil case in Australia ?
And unlike Lehmann she doesn't have someone offering to pay all her legal bills if she wants to take it further.
I get the impression that Reynolds is happy to turn the screws here and take this all the way if she doesn't get what she wants. If the Brittany's funds are overseas and they can't be recovered from Australia the Reynolds could 'win' but end up out of pocket.
Not sure on the legalities of not paying up in a civil case and whether any other further legal action can be taken ?

Reynolds tried to freeze Brittany's assets. Dunno if she was successful.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjz5refhuOEAxUy1TgGHfQfDVwQFnoECA4QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Faustralia-news%2F2024%2Fjan%2F19%2Flinda-reynolds-seeks-advice-on-bid-to-freeze-brittany-higgins-assets-in-france&usg=AOvVaw20n9kn0x5GU9KDVp4KZ2TS&opi=89978449

I imagine the likes of Zwier will be doing the job for the publicity for his mythical 'Mr Fix-It' reputation and/or will argue for costs if Reynolds loses (which she won't).

Zwier got appointed as 'Mr Fix-It' by Mark Korda in 2021 during the Pies EGM push and got pantsed by a small group of Collingwood supporters (myself included) who finally got a meaningful vote at Collingwood after years of McGuire's autocracy.

Throw in his client making a statement post hung jury (which is what it was ultimately) and his recorded coaching situation at the Park Hyatt in Sydney. His reputation might have been relevant once, but he seems to keep failing to me.

He'll lose this one too and unless he's got specific instructions from Higgins to keep ploughing forward, or unless the monetary claims from Reynolds' team idiotic, then he should have advised that they all settled a few days back.

 

[spike101]

If it's not resolved via mediation it goes to trial. I didn't think it was forced though just that the judge had asked both parties to try mediation before it goes further.
Brittany might be thinking of how much this may cost her , Sharaz can claim bankruptcy easy enough seeing he hasn't worked for a while unless he has a lot of assets.
Not sure where Brittany's pay out is or what's left of it is. If she's moved it to France I am not sure if any French court would order her to hand it over because of a judgement in a civil case in Australia ?
And unlike Lehmann she doesn't have someone offering to pay all her legal bills if she wants to take it further.
I get the impression that Reynolds is happy to turn the screws here and take this all the way if she doesn't get what she wants. If the Brittany's funds are overseas and they can't be recovered from Australia the Reynolds could 'win' but end up out of pocket.
Not sure on the legalities of not paying up in a civil case and whether any other further legal action can be taken ?

Why did the judge think mediation would be better than the human cost. Reynolds deserves her day in court. What game is the judge playing?

 

[Percel]

Why did the judge think mediation would be better than the human cost. Reynolds deserves her day in court. What game is the judge playing?

Always mediation

 

[spike101]

“Everyone has been shocked….” What a load of tosh. Everyone, not a single solitary person is not shocked. Typical drivel from The Grauniad (sic)

 

[spike101]

Drumgold has won.

Today, Acting Justice Stephen Kaye ruled Mr Sofronoff's communications with journalist Janet Albrechtsen of The Australian might have led a fair-minded observer to conclude he was influenced by her articles, many of which were critical of Mr Drumgold.

The court is expected to hear further arguments this afternoon over what relief Mr Drumgold is entitled to.

7/8 losses doesn’t mean Drumgold has won surely?

 

[spike101]

Our defamation laws favour the litigant. But only those with significant political power or wealth are able to take advantage of those laws in a highly costly civil trial.

Senator Reynolds cannot be seen as a vexatious litigant in her defamation actions because our defamation laws commence from the starting point of a publication being defamatory if it names/identifies another party. Simply by being named in a txt message, newspaper article or whatever, she becomes entitled to seek damages for injury and it is up to the publisher to prove they are not defaming.

It's all about the power imbalance and some might say more than a whiff of pay back and revenge and a warning to others. And yes it stinks. But with Reynolds about to leave Parliament for a career elsewhere, maybe as a lobbyist for the defence industry, who knows, I don't think she gives a toss what people think. The law is on her side.

A review of Australia's defamation laws have long been called for to bring them into line with other western nations and the presumed innocence foundation of other parts of our own justice system. But given that politicians and their allies are actively involved in the litigation process I can't see that happening any time soon.

Reynolds has had her career ruined by the ghastly Sharaz, the gang of Gallagher, Wong, Keneally (thank goodness she lost her seat) and Higgins. She is entitled to recover whatever redress she can. Dreyfus’s should be in the firing line too for giving Higgins $2m without examining the facts and refusing Reynolds financial assistance.

 

[Satan]

A dinner guest of Bruce Lehrmann has been captured on video using a credit card on a plate at the table.
Video shared on a public Instagram account on Sunday that briefly depicts an apparent dinner party hosted by Mr Lehrmann, shows a male member of the group using plastic cards to chop at something on a white plate.

Mr Lehrmann, who is seated at the end of the table several spaces away from the man with the card, is shown laughing and talking to his friends.

 

[FIGJAM]

No surprise to see Bruce associated with the Columbian Marching Powder yet again!

I've long suspected that the trip back to Parliament House by both Lehrmann and Higgins for was drug procurement. A 'safe space' post-club to try and arrange drugs via WhatsApp to kick on.

Would explain why Lehrmann had to account why he was there for so long, ultimately coming up with multiple excuses for being there like for keys (plausible, but that is a 5 second job), drinkin' whisky (by yourself in a corner?) and Question Time Briefs (implausible). And might also explain why Higgins waited patiently before falling asleep (she didn't think to duck in and ask what he was doing, why it was taking so long and that she was tired and might just piss off home?).

Obviously neither side has said anything to this effect, but I've never much believed either party's version of events as to why they were there. Ultimately I suspect that Higgins was the victim of an opportunistic assault, rather than the 'long-game rape' starting at The Dock that others do (and I think that theory was comfortably disproven in the recent defamation trial).

 

[BFew]

I've long suspected that the trip back to Parliament House by both Lehrmann and Higgins for was drug procurement. A 'safe space' post-club to try and arrange drugs via WhatsApp to kick on.

You mean, Bruce went to a space in PH that he was sure was not going to have any audio or video surveillance?
Very funny.

 

[Lady O]

You mean, Bruce went to a space in PH that he was sure was not going to have any audio or video surveillance?
Very funny.

Ditto for space to rape a colleague.

 

[FIGJAM]

You mean, Bruce went to a space in PH that he was sure was not going to have any audio or video surveillance?

There was a metric s**t ton of footage on the way in though! It actually formed a part of Whybrow's closing arguments that it's an absurd place to go for either consensual or non-consensual sex, due to the building being one of the most monitored in Australia via CCTV and with live security guards walking the halls and popping in and out whenever they feel like it.

And I agree with that. It's why I can't buy into the long-game rape theory.

 

[Festerz]

A dinner guest of Bruce Lehrmann has been captured on video using a credit card on a plate at the table.
Video shared on a public Instagram account on Sunday that briefly depicts an apparent dinner party hosted by Mr Lehrmann, shows a male member of the group using plastic cards to chop at something on a white plate.

Mr Lehrmann, who is seated at the end of the table several spaces away from the man with the card, is shown laughing and talking to his friends.

Given previous revelations about alleged multiple rapist 'needs bags' Lehrmann's extracurricular activities, I don't think this video is much of a surprise to anyone.

The Sydney Morning Herald reporting that it was a party at the home on Sydney's northern beaches that is being paid for by Kerry Stokes under a 12 months agreement that is due to expire soon. I wonder if the agreement will be extended.

Bruce Lehrmann seen on video as friend chops ‘white powder’ at dinner party

The former Liberal staffer Bruce Lehrmann enjoyed dinner with friends as one appears to line up white powder using credit cards.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Punt rd end]

The date is April 4th for the judgement

 

[Festerz]

The date is April 4th for the judgement

The case marks the first time in Australian legal history that a de facto sexual assault trial – involving Ten seeking to prove on the balance of probabilities that Lehrmann raped his then-colleague Brittany Higgins in 2019 – has been streamed on YouTube.

Should Lehrmann win the case, damages for non-economic loss in defamation cases are capped at $459,000, a figure that is increased annually. Lawyers for Ten and Wilkinson have argued this may be a case warranting an award of zero or nominal damages if their defences fail but the judge also finds Lehrmann lied in his evidence.

Experts differ on whether zero, as opposed to nominal, damages may be awarded to a successful defamation claimant.

Bosland said this question “highlights the problems that we have with defamation law doctrinally”.

“I’ve always been of the view we need an Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry into defamation just to completely scrap it and start again. I think that that’s needed.”

Bravo to that. Australia's defamation laws are biased in favour of the litigant - almost always someone in a position of power or with substantial financial backing, requiring the defendant prove they did not defame. Which is not only out of kilter with the 'presumption of innocence' basis of our justice system but out of kilter with defamation law in most other western jurisdictions.

‘Quasi-criminal trial’ in a defamation case: Lehrmann judgment day set

The former Liberal staffer’s case marks the first time in Australian legal history that a de facto sexual assault trial has been broadcast live.

www.smh.com.au