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

 

[Lady O]

so.

Since when, during a court case, with no judgement yet, do you know who has what funds..

This whole process is invasive and demeaning to the person who is being sued.

I am not comfortable with private sms being paraded in a court room.

It's not private that she won a huge $2.4M compensation payout from the Federal Government.

 

[jason_recliner]

LOL, what?

As Bennett knows full well, the... order cannot possibly be granted.

You know much more about these facets of law than me. And, apparently, more than Bennett.

 

[Festerz]

1. You know much more about these facets of law than me.

Correct.

But more importantly I can read beneath a headline and do some critical thinking about what it means in terms of admissibility. I suggest you might give it a try.

Start here:

Justice Tottle refused the application to subpoena Ms Higgins psychiatric and medical records.

During his judgement, Justice Tottle said the evidence Senator Reynolds wanted to produce from Dr Clavijo was too remote from the issue of whether she engaged in a campaign of harassment against Ms Higgins to assist him in resolving the issue.

Justice Tottle said he feared the evidence would lead to the development of additional issues, which would be further removed from the major issue he was being asked to resolve.

Loading…

www.news.com.au

2. And, apparently, more than Bennett.

And as for Reynolds' lawyer in this defamation case, Martin Bennett - don't forget he was found to have engaged in two counts of professional misconduct and one of unsatisfactory conduct by the Western Australian State Administrative Tribunal (WASAT) in April this year. Hence the 'dodgy' tag.

In the absence of the chance to cross examine Ms Higgins, his in court posturing and requests seem to me to be all about strategy and public manoeuvring as opposed to 'the law' and justice.

 

[campbell]

It's not private that she won a huge $2.4M compensation payout from the Federal Government.

They were her workplace.
How in hecks name is my workplace settlement, cannon fodder for everyone to see.

 

[jason_recliner]

Correct. and not hard.

But more importantly I can read beneath a headline and do some critical thinking about what it means, for example:

Justice Tottle refused the application to subpoena Ms Higgins psychiatric and medical records.

During his judgement, Justice Tottle said the evidence Senator Reynolds wanted to produce from Dr Clavijo was too remote from the issue of whether she engaged in a campaign of harassment against Ms Higgins to assist him in resolving the issue.

Justice Tottle said he feared the evidence would lead to the development of additional issues, which would be further removed from the major issue he was being asked to resolve.

Loading…

www.news.com.au

But we're talking about including the documents in a potential NACC referral, not this case (already denied for the reasons you cut 'n' pasted critically thought through above).

 

[Underarrest_]

But we're talking about including the documents in a potential NACC referral, not this case (already denied for the reasons you cut 'n' pasted critically thought through above).

Yes, Justice Tottle was referring to this case because he feared the evidence would lead to additional issues which would be further removed from the major issue he was being asked to resolve.

 

[campbell]

Hasnt LR already submitted to NACC?

 

[Lady O]

They were her workplace.
How in hecks name is my workplace settlement, cannon fodder for everyone to see.

Eh, maybe because it's taxpayer's money?

 

[Festerz]

But we're talking about including the documents in a potential NACC referral, not this case (already denied for the reasons you cut 'n' pasted critically thought through above).

Err, what?

The request to use the documents obtained via discovery for NACC referral was made in THIS case of THIS judge (Tottle) TODAY. Please try and keep up. And please, learn to read the stuff below the headline.

 

[jason_recliner]

Yes, Justice Tottle was referring to this case because he feared the evidence would lead to additional issues which would be further removed from the major issue he was being asked to resolve.

My understanding is there are two applications:

1. Include in Reynolds' defamation, rejected as the matter is “too remote” from the issues central to the case.

2. permission to use the documents in any submission to the corruption watchdog.

It is (2) that I opined would be interesting if it proceeded, unaware Tottle is unable to authorise this use, and thinking it was still to be determined. My mistake.

 

[campbell]

Eh, maybe because it's taxpayer's money?

irrelevant under workplace law.

If one works in a state gov department, they would not be subjected to this.
Appalling bullying, definate huge power imbalance.

 

[jason_recliner]

Err, what?

The request to use the documents obtained via discovery for NACC referral was made in THIS case of THIS judge (Tottle) TODAY. Please try and keep up. And please, learn to read the stuff below the headline.

No, you're confused:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...efamation-trial-current.1380204/post-84992740

But I now understand, thanks, that Tottle cannot grant this (not something I could have gleaned from reading "the stuff below the headline").

 

[jason_recliner]

irrelevant under workplace law.

If one works in a state gov department, they would not be subjected to this.
Appalling bullying, definate huge power imbalance.

She received an extraordinary payout of public money with questionable (being generous) justification and opaque (being generous) oversight.

 

[Festerz]

Yes, Justice Tottle was referring to this case because he feared the evidence would lead to additional issues which would be further removed from the major issue he was being asked to resolve.

Exactly.

And as if to underline that fear, Campbell then goes on to ask Tottle's permission to use the confidential health records for referral to the NACC,.

I mean, did he not hear what Justice Tottle said about secondary issues or did he just not comprehend what he meant?

He is effectively asking permission from the judge to leak confidential private materials to the NACC (and more than likely the media) just as his client Senator Reynolds did previously.

It's not just absurd, its yet more damning evidence of what this defamation action is really all about and that it has nothing at all to do with restoring Reynolds' reputation.

 

[big_e]

irrelevant under workplace law.

If one works in a state gov department, they would not be subjected to this.
Appalling bullying, definate huge power imbalance.

Governments made loads of payments with confidential settlements attached - the state government here in WA has been quite good in making ex gratia payments to people wrongfully convicted of serious crimes, for instance, and I'm sure that ex gratia payments to people sexually and/or physically abused in state-run institutions were confidential, too.

Opposition to the Higgins payout, I believe, comes from people who believe she was not sexually assaulted.

 

[Kurve]

Reynolds has just given Albrechtsen another headline but which might actually go towards Higgins claim of harassment through the media.

 

[Kurve]

All I see are a bunch of people setting about their business and acting in mundane and perhaps sometimes somewhat self-interested ways, that can potentially be spun a certain way, but what I have never been able to see is the primary political cover-up claim of:

View attachment 2087611

* felt forced

 

[Underarrest_]

Exactly.

And as if to underline that fear, Campbell then goes on to ask Tottle's permission to use the confidential health records for referral to the NACC,.

I mean, did he not hear what Justice Tottle said about secondary issues or did he just not comprehend what he meant?

He is effectively asking permission from the judge to leak confidential private materials to the NACC (and more than likely the media) just as his client Senator Reynolds did previously.

It's not just absurd, its yet more damning evidence of what this defamation action is really all about and that it has nothing at all to do with restoring Reynolds' reputation.

Yes agree, medical records are personal and confidential for a reason.

 

[Festerz]

Governments made loads of payments with confidential settlements attached - the state government here in WA has been quite good in making ex gratia payments to people wrongfully convicted of serious crimes, for instance, and I'm sure that ex gratia payments to people sexually and/or physically abused in state-run institutions were confidential, too.

Opposition to the Higgins payout, I believe, comes from people who believe she was not sexually assaulted.

IIRC, the process for making the payment to Ms Higgins commenced under the Morrison Government and the amount and purpose was authorised by the Commonwealth Solicitor as is the proper process for these things. Those payments are almost always kept confidential under the strict order of the Solicitor General for a number of reasons, including the fact that it may prejudice negotiations for future settlements - which is exactly the same situation for commercial settlements.

Is there any suggestion that the proper processes were NOT followed in this case? That it was taken out of the hands of the legal and bureaucratic process and politically manipulated?

Or are the same people again jumping at the shadows of rumours and innuendo created for by the like of Janet Albrechtsen and her ilk for political reasons?

And is Liberal Senator Reynolds and her fellow MPs and supporters, who are getting upset about a rape survivor creating a legal trust fund to manage her large compensation payout, also prepared to go public with an attack on fellow politicians and political donors and supporters who also use overseas trust funds to manage their financial assets tom minimise tax obligations and other reasons? I mean go your hardest if that's your issue - you have my full support!!

The double standards and hypocrisy on display here is mind boggling.

 

[jason_recliner]

Governments made loads of payments with confidential settlements attached - the state government here in WA has been quite good in making ex gratia payments to people wrongfully convicted of serious crimes, for instance, and I'm sure that ex gratia payments to people sexually and/or physically abused in state-run institutions were confidential, too.

Opposition to the Higgins payout, I believe, comes from people who believe she was not sexually assaulted.

IIRC, the process for making the payment to Ms Higgins commenced under the Morrison Government and the amount and purpose was authorised by the Commonwealth Solicitor as is the proper process for these things. Those payments are almost always kept confidential under the strict order of the Solicitor General for a number of reasons, including the fact that it may prejudice negotiations for future settlements - which is exactly the same situation for commercial settlements.

Is there any suggestion that the proper processes were NOT followed in this case? That it was taken out of the hands of the legal and bureaucratic process and politically manipulated?

Or are the same people again jumping at the shadows of rumours and innuendo created for by the like of Janet Albrechtsen and her ilk for political reasons?

If you're genuinely interested, Hugh Selby explains it in some detail appropriate for a layperson audience. There are some other decent semi-deep dives online as well. It has nothing to do with whether she was r*ped, which is accepted by reasonable people.

There are many issues, such as whether the claims would have had a reasonable chance in court, was appropriate legal advice sought, did the AG approve under "special circumstances" and if so, what are they? Several of the claims (not related to workplace safety) have subsequently been disproven in court, hence the various calls for investigation into the payout.

It's clear deed Recitals D-G (detailed in the appended Claimant's Personal Particulars) are, at the very least, partly or fully questionable in light of the information and court findings which are now publicly available.

 

[Lady O]

Governments made loads of payments with confidential settlements attached - the state government here in WA has been quite good in making ex gratia payments to people wrongfully convicted of serious crimes, for instance, and I'm sure that ex gratia payments to people sexually and/or physically abused in state-run institutions were confidential, too.

Opposition to the Higgins payout, I believe, comes from people who believe she was not sexually assaulted.

It came out in the trial.

FYI for comparison, the average payout is somewhat less, about $85,000

• Under the National Redress Scheme for Survivors, the compensation of sexually abused victims Australia is $150,000, although the average compensation payment is about $85,000.

So why was Higgins' payout around 30 times larger than average do you think?

 

[Festerz]

If you're genuinely interested, Hugh Selby explains it in some detail appropriate for a layperson audience. There are some other decent semi-deep dives online as well.

There are many issues, such as whether the claims would have had a reasonable chance in court, was appropriate legal advice sought, did the AG approve under "special circumstance" and if so, what are they? Several of the claims (not related to workplace safety) have subsequently been disproven in court, hence the various calls for investigation into the payout.

This makes sense.

AS I posted at the time, transparency of process when it comes to public spending and law making is nearly always the best outcome in terms of the long term public interest. And that does not necessarily conflict with the need to preserve the confidentiality of the beneficiary(ies).

There MAY be genuine reasons for diverting from agreed processes but this should always be explained - preferably via the Parliamentary process - especially if the matter has generated significant public and media interest.

But this is a matter for the government of the day and the political process. And not something that should be publicly pursued as a civil matter by a serving Senator against the beneficiary especially given the circumstances surrounding the reasons for the payout.

 

[campbell]

She received an extraordinary payout of public money with questionable (being generous) justification and opaque (being generous) oversight.

What.

Why is that your business and how come you feel the need to have an uninformed opinion?

 

[jason_recliner]

What.

Why is that your business and how come you feel the need to have an uninformed opinion?

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...efamation-trial-current.1380204/post-84993497

 

[Festerz]

It came out in the trial.

FYI for comparison, the average payout is somewhat less, about $85,000

• Under the National Redress Scheme for Survivors, the compensation of sexually abused victims Australia is $150,000, although the average compensation payment is about $85,000.

So why was Higgins' payout around 30 times larger than average do you think?

Because her sexual abuse was at the hands of a fellow Commonwealth employee in a Ministerial Suite after hours in Parliament House? The circumstances, the events leading up to the assault, the perpetrator and the subsequent handling of the assault allegation all well documented.

And that the advice of the Solicitor General was that likely compensation and legal cost if Ms Higgins took the government to court under a civil claim would have been substantially higher, especially in the light of the damning findings of the Independent Report of the Human Rights Commissioner into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces.

And that the Federal Government is bound by a higher duty of care than other employers given it has legislated responsibility under the Human Rights Act and UN protocols for the safety and welfare of woman in the workplace.

Just a guess.

I mean enough with the BS false comparisons.