Updated Bruce Lehrmann Pt2 * ACT Bar clears former DPP head Shane Drumgold of misconduct

[Kurve]

Here is PART 1

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



FIONA BROWN - AFFIDAVIT

 

[spike101]

‘Punitive’: Reynolds accuses attorney-general of prejudice over Lehrmann inquiry

The former minister says Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus denied her bid for a Commonwealth funded lawyer throughout the Lehrmann inquiry.

www.smh.com.au

 

[spike101]

‘Punitive’: Reynolds accuses attorney-general of prejudice over Lehrmann inquiry

The former minister says Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus denied her bid for a Commonwealth funded lawyer throughout the Lehrmann inquiry.

www.smh.com.au

According to Justice Lee, there was no conspiracy?

 

[Satan]

High-profile television personality Lisa Wilkinson is seeking $1.8 million from employer Network 10 for legal costs incurred during Bruce Lehrmann’s failed defamation lawsuit, a court has heard.
Justice Michael Lee earlier this year dismissed Lehrmann’s high-profile lawsuit against Ms Wilkinson and Network 10 over Brittany Higgins’ comments that she was r*ped in Parliament House.

In his judgment, Justice Lee found that – on the balance of probabilities – Lehrmann had r*ped Ms Higgins inside Senator Linda Reynolds’ office, and dismissed Lehrmann’s defamation claim.

 

[FIGJAM]

"The defamation trial involving Brittany Higgins and Senator Linda Reynolds could be expanded to include more allegations against the Senator's former staffer.

Senator Reynolds submitted a third application to the WA Supreme Court after a discovery order revealed a conversation that took place between Ms Higgins and her fiance David Sharaz.

The conversation was a series of WhatsApp messages that showed the pair discussing who should make a social media post on what platform, based on who had the most followers."

Interestingly Higgins and Sharaz didn't think that collaborating over who could intentionally cause the most collateral damage through their respective social media accounts was so egregious as to not delete these particular texts.

He also raised concerns about the “incomplete” and “curated” evidence Higgins had supplied, telling the court some messages were only half downloaded and 15 had been deleted, while others were missing time stamps.

Reynolds fights to add WhatsApp ‘collaboration’ to Higgins defamation row

Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds will attempt to add a fresh claim to her high-stakes defamation row with Brittany Higgins.

www.smh.com.au

Doesn't take too much of an imagination to work out what those texts would have contained...

 

[DapperDon]

Interestingly Higgins and Sharaz didn't think that collaborating over who could intentionally cause the most collateral damage through their respective social media accounts was so egregious as to not delete these particular texts.

Reynolds fights to add WhatsApp ‘collaboration’ to Higgins defamation row

Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds will attempt to add a fresh claim to her high-stakes defamation row with Brittany Higgins.

www.smh.com.au

Doesn't take too much of an imagination to work out what those texts would have contained...

ok got it

Higgins and Sharaz talking is bad

Reynolds and Albrechtsen talking is not bad

 

[FIGJAM]

Higgins and Sharaz talking is bad

There is a difference between "talking" and colluding to weaponise false accusations.

 

[Festerz]

He's Baaack.

 

[Kurve]

He's Baaack.


View attachment 2006199

This is never going to end.

 

[DapperDon]

Does a different judge look over the appeal? and is anyone required to answer more questions from silks?

 

[Festerz]

This is never going to end.

As per my previous post on this, imho this has as much to do with the creation of an appearance of innocence prior to his upcoming Toowoomba rape trial. There is a strong chance this appeal might be withdrawn in due course if that's the case.

Bearing in mind he is entitled to an assumption of innocence for that trial and has not been convicted of any offence.

But the impact on Brittany Higgins and other future victims of rape of this ongoing 'wicked' use of our civil courts to shame and intimidate victims is what is most disgusting.

4.30 today AET was the deadline for lodging a notice of appeal btw so he waited right until the last minute to do so.

 

[Festerz]

Does a different judge look over the appeal?

Yes. And not acquainted with defamation law processes but usually a Full Court of several judges hear an appeal.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Bruce will be representing himself

 

[Punt rd end]

Yes. And not acquainted with defamation law processes but usually a Full Court of several judges hear an appeal.

So how does this work? He has no money so he costs everybody else more money

 

[jason_recliner]

Bruce will be representing himself

View attachment 2006269

How hard can it be?!?!?!

 

[Festerz]

Bruce will be representing himself

View attachment 2006269

Channel Ten can 'reveal' that Lehrmann is representing himself?

I assume they came to that conclusion by looking at the notice of appeal court lodgement document that I copied above.

I'm not a practicing lawyer but while it's true that the lodgement document has a place for the signature of the legal representative and that signature is normally included, I'm not certain that failing to include the name of the legal representative necessarily precludes the appellant from having one when/if the matter proceeds.

So how does this work? He has no money so he costs everybody else more money

The cost of lodging a notice of appeal is not excessive (<$2k for an individual iirc). That is all that has been done thus far I think.

And given his own declaration of being without external financial support there would seem to be a good chance the Federal Court would issue an order demanding the lodgement of a substantial security bond for the appeal to proceed (Lawyers for Ten and Wilkinson would most certainly be demanding one I would think).

P.S. I think it's Judge Lee's birthday tomorrow. Bruce's gift will surprise.

 

[FIGJAM]

Hopefully he represents himself and that it’s live streamed, as I’ve been suffering a comedic void since Curb Your Enthusiasm ended.

 

[jason_recliner]

 

[Brian Oblivion]

This article is interesting.

Bruce Lehrmann says he was denied procedural fairness in failed defamation case, court documents reveal

Federal Court Notice of Appeal documents reveal former Liberal staffer Bruce Lehrmann plans to challenge findings made against him in his failed defamation case on the grounds he was denied procedural fairness.

www.abc.net.au

This bit in particlular …….

The notice also pointed to the differences in the account of the incident suggested by The Project interview and the description in the recent judgment.

"The broadcast suggests a violent rape, where the complainant was in tears and repeatedly refused consent, of which repeated refusal the perpetrator must have been aware," the notice said.

"This is contrary to the non-violent rape involving inadvertent recklessness as to consent which was ultimately found in the judgement made by the trial judge."

Thing is he’s always denied sex took place - is he now admitting it did ?

 

[FIGJAM]

Thing is he’s always denied sex took place - is he now admitting it did ?

Presumably not, unless he's interested in taking his credibility rating on a scale of 1 to 10 from minus a billion to minus a trillion!

I'm assuming that his argument is that The Project projected a narrative of a 'more aggravated rape' than a 'sneaky opportunist rape' and that procedurally, it wasn't 'only' the rape that needed to be considered.

Lee went into great detail as to what rape in the context of the civil trial meant:

H.2 Substantial Truth: Was there a Rape?

I What Needs to be Proven

562 The submissions of all parties were less than helpful in relation to this aspect of the case. This is not a criticism of the barristers but reflects the reality that the respondents say sexual intercourse happened in such a way as to mean it follows axiomatically that there must have been a rape; whereas Mr Lehrmann’s case is that no sexual intercourse took place at all.

563 More particularly, Network Ten contends that because Mr Lehrmann denied any sexual contact, this:

… obviate[ed] the need for any enquiry as to whether the intercourse described by Ms Higgins could have been consensual or as to whether his conduct was other than wilful or reckless (Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 54). If intercourse occurred as described by Ms Higgins, it was obviously rape.

564 But it is not as easy as that for at least two reasons: first, as I have explained, although I have found intercourse took place, I am not reasonably satisfied as to an aspect of the account of Ms Higgins as to what occurred, that is, she repeatedly and expressly said to Mr Lehrmann that he should stop; and secondly, the relevant inquiry on the substantial truth defence is not governed by whether Mr Lehrmann breached a particular statutory norm, being s 54(1) of the Crimes Act.

565 This second point requires some elaboration.

566 It is agreed the respondents must prove Mr Lehrmann r*ped Ms Higgins, but what does one mean by “rape” in this context? Does it mean something different from what can be described as the penetrative sexual offence that existed in the ACT at the time of the alleged assault or at the time of publication? Put another way, does it mean something different from the charge Mr Lehrmann faced in the criminal proceeding?

567 Historically, rape was defined at common law as carnal knowledge by a man of a woman (who is not the man’s wife) against her will. Consistently with this definition, the crime of rape required proof of physical force and resistance: Cyril J Smith, ‘History of Rape and Rape Laws’ (1974) 60(4) Women Lawyers Journal 188 (at 189–91). Further, the crime was subject to a narrow definition of sexual intercourse and, as the years have passed, statutory extensions and modifications to the common law crime of rape have been made in all jurisdictions to varying degrees. For example, there is no longer any principle in Australian common law respecting the single legal personality of spouses (hence rape can occur within marriage), and the penetrative sexual offence is no longer gender-specific and, despite some inconsistencies, generally includes penetration of the genitalia by a penis, object, or part of a body or mouth. There has now been removal of express references to force and the introduction of a consent standard based upon voluntary agreement. Further, the penetrative sexual offence is still described as “rape” in some jurisdictions (Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania); but by 2010 was described as “sexual assault” in New South Wales, “sexual intercourse without consent” in the ACT and the Northern Territory; and “sexual penetration without consent” in Western Australia: see Australian Law Reform Commission, Family Violence – A National Legal Response (Report 114, October 2010) (at [25.8]–[25.13]).

568 It may be stating the obvious, but given some submissions made by the parties, it is important to stress that I am not dealing with whether, by reference to the civil standard of proof, Mr Lehrmann has breached a specific criminal provision under a law of the Australian Capital Territory. My inquiry is different and is relevantly focused upon the natural and ordinary meaning of the word “rape”. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that language is not static; it evolves, and a word’s denotation or connotation is not immune from development and change. Our focus is on what rape means in contemporary Australia – not by reference to what it may have meant historically or may mean in the future (if, for example, legislative change eventually causes the ordinary perception of what constitutes consent to also change).

569 Although the elements of the penetrative sexual offence can differ somewhat between jurisdictions and by reference to the time when the offending is alleged to have taken place, the natural and ordinary meaning of rape is tolerably plain. As noted above, given the contemporary ordinary understanding of rape and how it has been particularised in this case, the respondents are required to prove:

(1) that, at the time and place alleged, that is, at Parliament House on 23 March 2019, Mr Lehrmann had sexual intercourse with Ms Higgins;

(2) without Ms Higgins’ consent;

(3) knowing Ms Higgins did not consent.

VI Conclusion on Rape

620 Mr Lehrmann r*ped Ms Higgins.

621 I hasten to stress; this is a finding on the balance of probabilities. This finding should not be misconstrued or mischaracterised as a finding that I can exclude all reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence. As I have explained, there is a substantive difference between the criminal standard of proof and the civil standard of proof and, as the tribunal of fact, I have only to be reasonably satisfied that Mr Lehrmann has acted as I have found, and I am not obliged to reach that degree of certainty necessary to support conviction upon a criminal charge.

No judge on the balance of probabilities is going to know for certain exactly how aggravated or not the assault was, hence the balance of probabilities disclaimer. While he disbelieved that Higgins yelled out stop repeatedly and had significant doubts on the veracity of the bruise photo, doesn't mean that he's qualifying the exact nature of the assault to a tea.

As per my previous post on this, imho this has as much to do with the creation of an appearance of innocence prior to his upcoming Toowoomba rape trial. There is a strong chance this appeal might be withdrawn in due course if that's the case.

Festerz and I rarely see eye to eye, but I agree with him 100% on the above and this appeal are optics for the Toowoomba trial.

Lehrmann will then claim that all the alleged Toowoomba complainant will be after fame and money, all following his media profile based on a false claim that he's never been convicted of. Nothing surer, because he's a complete campaigner.

 

[BFew]

Speculation is rife on what sort of claimed $13,250 damage Lehrmann did to the Lady's luxury $2,000pw rental.

Maybe a clue or two in the pics below.

Bruce Lehrmann’s former landlord claims he caused $13,250 damage to home Seven Network paid for

Gaenor Meakes told NSW tribunal Lehrmann also owes $6,000 in lost rent after leaving the Balgowlah property early

www.theguardian.com

Daily Mail pics

 

[Festerz]

Typical Daily Mail off topic BS (or in this case DS).

That reminds me. The victim of the alleged October 2021 rape at the hands of Bruce Lehrmann will face cross examination in the Toowoomba Magistrates Court on Monday as part of the committal hearing to determine if the matter proceeds to trial.

Events will not be streamed live but a balanced outline of proceedings will be available in The Australian and the Daily Mail as they unfold for those interested.

 

[InagoRaida]

Speculation is rife on what sort of claimed $13,250 damage Lehrmann did to the Lady's luxury $2,000pw rental.

Maybe a clue or two in the pics below.

Bruce Lehrmann’s former landlord claims he caused $13,250 damage to home Seven Network paid for

Gaenor Meakes told NSW tribunal Lehrmann also owes $6,000 in lost rent after leaving the Balgowlah property early

www.theguardian.com

Daily Mail pics
View attachment 2017803

View attachment 2017804

Even the pooch trying to distance himself from Brucey Boy

 

[FIGJAM]

Hopefully the current Toowoomba case can go some way to restoring the tarnished faith in the criminal justice system for sexual assault victims.

 

[BFew]

Even the pooch trying to distance himself from Brucey Boy

Sunny boy had probably just received a message from Bruce's legal team that Bruce was planning to counter-sue Sunny for the (presumed) damage to the Balgowlah apartment.

Sunny is probably also considering sueing the Daily Tail and Big Woofy for defamation.

 

[Percel]

Sunny boy had probably just received a message from Bruce's legal team that Bruce was planning to counter-sue Sunny for the (presumed) damage to the Balgowlah apartment.

Sunny is probably also considering sueing the Daily Mail and Big Woofy for defamation.

Should that read the Daily Tail?