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

 

[InagoRaida]

And here we are today.

Wonder who is going to stump up the $ for his legal representation (if anyone actually ever does) now that he's sacked himself?

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/bruce-lehrmanns-last-minute-legal-bid-ahead-of-ten-wilkinson-appeal/news-story/1bd380c76691b15b4c157c1ba833a332

'Bruce Lehrmann’s last minute legal bid ahead of Ten, Wilkinson appeal​

ELLIE DUDLEY
3 hours ago. Updated 33 minutes ago

Bruce Lehrmann has made the eleventh-hour decision to obtain legal representation ahead of his Federal Court appeal against judge Michael Lee’s defamation judgment, having previously indicated he was going to represent himself in court.
High-profile criminal solicitor Zali Burrows appeared before judge Wendy Abraham on Thursday morning for the matter’s first case management hearing.

The Australian understands the appointment of Ms Burrows was made under the recommendation of crown-prosecutor-turned-criminal-barrister Margaret Cunneen SC, who has been quietly assisting Mr Lehrmann throughout the appeal process.

Ms Burrows has been working closely with top appeals silk Guy Reynolds SC, who The Australian also understands has been helping Mr Lehrmann prepare for court.

In court on Thursday Ms Burrows, whose client list includes former Auburn deputy mayor and convicted fraudster Salim Mehajer, convicted drug importer Bassam Hamzy and convicted terrorist Hamdi Alqudsi, foreshadowed Mr Lehrmann will likely obtain counsel before the appeal is heard.

Justice Abraham asked Ms Burrows when the court would “be in a position to be notified” about the appointment of counsel.

Ms Burrows said: “As soon as I know, I certainly will advise the parties.”
...'

What i REALLY want to know is why are these well-connected legal eagles (eg: Cuneen) out to do their utmost to "assist" ol' Brucey LeeringMan? What power/knowledge/pictures does Brucey have that these seemingly intelligent humans stick their neck out for him? Any ideas? (Scomo or Dutto's Love Child?)
Although, Cunneen IMO, has previous dodgey form i believe, as she was disciplined(from memory?) about a false deckaration or too in a NSW traffic camera infringement or 2. Wasn't a good look....

Brucey changes his Counsel as frequently as changes in Melbourne winter weather...
Obviously he wore out his welcome with Korn, Whybrow, et al.
Where is Zara Garde-Wilson when we require her, to add further spice to this omnishambles....

 

[InagoRaida]

You realise that you're the main protagonist that's keeping it going on this board?

Maybe Litigious Linda rewarding him on a "per-letter" basis?

Purely in jest, Figgy!

Although i do often wonder about the reason(s) you so stridently defend her? Notwithstanding the Higgins matter, she has not shown herself to be an exemplary Minister, IMO, nor one immune from displaying duplicity and narrative modification to suit her own benefit.

She lost me completely with Hubby in court, listening to witnesses prior to LR giving evidence..and to top that, asking for the transcript of witness testimony, and surreptiously directing the defence on strategy of questioning...
Whilst Hubby not strictly against Law to be there (if he doesn't discuss it with LR..), it simply doesn't past muster, nor send the right perception of setting an example in such a significant trial.

Feck Me, surely these are not leadership behaviours of a Senior Minister in her position, with her career legal experience?!? Extremely duplicitous when pulled up on it to...

So FIGJAM please explain your strident defence of her if you may...i'm not being provocative or disingenuous, i'm sincerely curious at your interest in her...as I'm sure others are too!

(Apologies if you have previously alluded to your reasons..please point me to post if so)

 

[Percel]

Nah champ!! I just want all participants in this shit-show to cop their rightful whack for their contribution to the shit-show.

And that does include Reynolds, but not to the extent that others here desire that to be. I have empathy to both Linda Reynolds and Fiona Brown, as they're often painted in here as being culpable to the rape event, which could not be more unfair IMHO.

There are unsurprisingly many prolific contributors in here who are less involved in this Crime Board and more involved as being political shills on the SR&P Board.

It's interesting that the politically-charged 'crime buffs' in here have neglected to note that from the recent discovery, Higgins' legal defence has chosen to utilise the finding from the recent Lehrmann faceplant of a defamation trial, that Reynolds wanted to report the assault to the police as evidence that she "mishandled" the situation.

The allegations that Reynolds pressured Higgins to drop the charge, yet wanted to report whatever was known only days after the event, are mutually exclusive claims. It is why "Justice FIGJAM Lee" stated that this is the "topsy turvy" element that is pure unadulterated evidence that there was no cover-up:



Without the "cover-up" element, there are no arguments with Reynolds (or Brown, or the AFP, or the security at Parliament House, or sexual assault victim Detective Superintendent Scott Moller's investigation group....the list goes on and on...).

And most importantly, without this demonstrably false political cover-up claim, would there have even been publishable articles on news.com.au and The Project in the first place, that were undertaken before a police complaint was even lodged? So who had an interest in making this all up? Who invented "evidence" and curated data to propagate this falsity?

As I said above, "I just want all participants in this shit-show to cop their rightful whack for their contribution to the shit-show.". That includes Higgins. The rape itself is abhorrent. The false claims are less abhorrent, yet have without the false claims, where is the "collateral damage"? Without the false claims, this would be a blip on this board and have ended years ago. Without the false claims, Bruce could be a better chance of being in gaol.



Many want the false cover-up claims to be swept under the rug, but **** that shit! It's right in front of our faces and needs to be called out.

And there have it, you are so far past invested that it’s actually sad.

 

[Festerz]

Yeah, no, I get it.

Err no you don't. And clearly either failed to read and/or failed to comprehend what was being said about the importance of jurisdictional context and the difference between how defamation law is tried and damages adjudicated in the different jurisdictions.

But hey, you just stick with what works for you...

 

[FIGJAM]

And there have it, you are so far past invested that it’s actually sad.

And there you have it; not even addressing any points raised and just spewing insults on the internet.

That is truly sad!

 

[FIGJAM]

So FIGJAM please explain your strident defence of her if you may...i'm not being provocative or disingenuous, i'm sincerely curious at your interest in her...as I'm sure others are too!

Not a problem. Thanks for asking nicely. A refreshing change!

I am not in "strident support" for Reynolds at all! I've stated many times that I don't much like her and feel like she's a bit of a walking omnishambles in her own right.

I've said that I don't agree with her current legal action.

I certainly don't agree with her "lying cow" comment (which wasn't related to the rape itself, although it's often painted that way).

The choice of her office for the Monday meeting with Britany was certainly dumb.

I don't care that her husband went to court, as it wasn't televised and without the false allegations component, I doubt she'd have done much more than keep an eye on it through the news.

...Ms Higgins crafted a narrative accusing others of putting up roadblocks and forcing her two years earlier of having to choose between her career and seeking justice by making and pursuing a complaint.

Ultimately, it's this false allegation component that has driven any of this noise and why I feel so strongly that it's continually underplayed. I feel for Brown and Reynolds in this regard, even if the latter is, as I've inferred above, a bit of a bitch and a sub-par decision maker.

 

[Percel]

And there you have it; not even addressing any points raised and just spewing insults on the internet.

That is truly sad!

whooooooooosh,

stay invested comrade.

 

[InagoRaida]

Not a problem. Thanks for asking nicely. A refreshing change!

I am not in "strident support" for Reynolds at all! I've stated many times that I don't much like her and feel like she's a bit of a walking omnishambles in her own right.

I've said that I don't agree with her current legal action.

I certainly don't agree with her "lying cow" comment (which wasn't related to the rape itself, although it's often painted that way).

The choice of her office for the Monday meeting with Britany was certainly dumb.

I don't care that her husband went to court, as it wasn't televised and without the false allegations component, I doubt she'd have done much more than keep an eye on it through the news.



Ultimately, it's this false allegation component that has driven any of this noise and why I feel so strongly that it's continually underplayed. I feel for Brown and Reynolds in this regard, even if the latter is, as I've inferred above, a bit of a bitch and a sub-par decision maker.

Thanks Figgy for your detailed reply, and an understanding of where you are coming from.

I share some of your views, particularly about the misrepresentation by nedia about the "lying cow" reference...it was still not good form, but agree, it has been inaccurately weaponised about the rape scenario.
Also, agreed, a walking omnishambles...
I agree strongly about Fiona Brown...i think she has been disparaged way more than Reynolds...IMO.
But for Reynolds,so many mis-steps for someone so senior...you rightly point out the Monday meeting...it has always seemed to me that those initial actions were woefully insensitive, and not genuinely compassionate.
I think we have to agree to disagree about her actions (and Hubby) during trial..that was big red flag to me. But respect your individual position.

I understand now your discontent with the false allegation aspect, and the supposed "cover up". I get that aspect of your perspective now.

In essence, everyone in this whole matter has been affected in some negative way. Yes, it hasn't been good for Reynolds, but her reputation was not untarnished prior to this, but she is well connected, in the twilight of her career, and she'll be ok... Sharaz is a grub, and IMO been quite duplicitous in this whole affair, sadly to the detriment of his now wife.
But I truly wish those defending Reynolds would just give 10% of that effort to think about being in Ms Higgins' situation for a minute...in dream job at start of her career, on balance of probability r*ped by a close colleague, grub and serial pest, then torn one way and another by various forces in deciding the pathway to navigate closure. Her actions post have sometimes been less than ideal, partly due to interests of others, but in this whole sorry saga, her former employer, and the AFP, and to some extent, the Justice system have let her down...
I think of myself in my early 20s if presented with a situation of such overwhelming magnitude....it would be very hard to know what to do, risking career, etc.
I'd like to think you've given more than enough focus to the interests of Reynolds, and defending her well-being...we get your point.
But as several other long time considered contributors have pointed out, this is really about the outcome for Higgins...its time for moving on. But IMO, Reynolds actions now speak of spite and revenge, and nothing more. Her reputation IMO would be better served and restored by letting it all go, and taking the wiser position of live and let live. Sharaz, arguably the worst protagonist, is not contesting so why can Reynolds not let it go with apologies/simple settlement, rather than doubling down now.
To me, that looks very much like a vendetta...and for Minister, that is not cool at all...

The damage inflicted upon Higgins is orders of magnitude higher than anything Reynolds has experienced. Please remember that!

Thankyou for your considered answer to my question, and apologies for labelling you a "strident supporter" of Reynolds

 

[jason_recliner]

Err no you don't. And clearly either failed to read and/or failed to comprehend what was being said about the importance of jurisdictional context and the difference between how defamation law is tried and damages adjudicated in the different jurisdictions.

But hey, you just stick with what works for you...

No, it's just that I'm not one for monotonous (tedious, baseless, pointless, often proved incorrect) rants - no offence.

 

[Festerz]

No, it's just that I'm not one for monotonous (tedious, baseless, pointless, often proved incorrect) rants - no offence.

Well you've said many times you're a TL;DR sort of person. So reckon anything over a few paragraphs without pictures would be 'tedious' in your world.

But I look forward to the day you finally post something that shows a modicum of critical thinking or a capacity to look beyond a tabloid headline. A comment with substance and insight rather than juvenile sniping.

Give it a try.

 

[Lady O]

Thanks Figgy for your detailed reply, and an understanding of where you are coming from.

I share some of your views, particularly about the misrepresentation by nedia about the "lying cow" reference...it was still not good form, but agree, it has been inaccurately weaponised about the rape scenario.
Also, agreed, a walking omnishambles...
I agree strongly about Fiona Brown...i think she has been disparaged way more than Reynolds...IMO.
But for Reynolds,so many mis-steps for someone so senior...you rightly point out the Monday meeting...it has always seemed to me that those initial actions were woefully insensitive, and not genuinely compassionate.
I think we have to agree to disagree about her actions (and Hubby) during trial..that was big red flag to me. But respect your individual position.

I understand now your discontent with the false allegation aspect, and the supposed "cover up". I get that aspect of your perspective now.

In essence, everyone in this whole matter has been affected in some negative way. Yes, it hasn't been good for Reynolds, but her reputation was not untarnished prior to this, but she is well connected, in the twilight of her career, and she'll be ok... Sharaz is a grub, and IMO been quite duplicitous in this whole affair, sadly to the detriment of his now wife.
But I truly wish those defending Reynolds would just give 10% of that effort to think about being in Ms Higgins' situation for a minute...in dream job at start of her career, on balance of probability r*ped by a close colleague, grub and serial pest, then torn one way and another by various forces in deciding the pathway to navigate closure. Her actions post have sometimes been less than ideal, partly due to interests of others, but in this whole sorry saga, her former employer, and the AFP, and to some extent, the Justice system have let her down...
I think of myself in my early 20s if presented with a situation of such overwhelming magnitude....it would be very hard to know what to do, risking career, etc.
I'd like to think you've given more than enough focus to the interests of Reynolds, and defending her well-being...we get your point.
But as several other long time considered contributors have pointed out, this is really about the outcome for Higgins...its time for moving on. But IMO, Reynolds actions now speak of spite and revenge, and nothing more. Her reputation IMO would be better served and restored by letting it all go, and taking the wiser position of live and let live. Sharaz, arguably the worst protagonist, is not contesting so why can Reynolds not let it go with apologies/simple settlement, rather than doubling down now.
To me, that looks very much like a vendetta...and for Minister, that is not cool at all...

The damage inflicted upon Higgins is orders of magnitude higher than anything Reynolds has experienced. Please remember that!

Thankyou for your considered answer to my question, and apologies for labelling you a "strident supporter" of Reynolds

But for Reynolds,so many mis-steps for someone so senior...you rightly point out the Monday meeting...it has always seemed to me that those initial actions were woefully insensitive, and not genuinely compassionate.

From Curve's timeline:
"Monday, April 1

• Ms Higgins meets with Senator Reynolds in the office where the incident allegedly occurred.
• Ms Higgins meets with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) unit at Parliament House."

Just to reiterate, it was not until the meeting on the Monday that Higgins made the allegation of rape. How was Reynolds supposed to know about it beforehand? All she was told is that there was a "security breach".

I think people here are changing the timeline to suit their own prejudices about certain people. Higgins met with the AFP at Brown and Reynolds request that same day. To suggest that it was insensitive and unsympathetic to hold a meeting in her own office is bestowing the skill of clairvoyance upon Reynolds.

 

[jason_recliner]

You realise that you're the main protagonist that's keeping it going on this board?

To be fair and balanced, other people post links to articles about Reynolds' latest heinous travesty in daring to defend herself against defamation, refusing to allow this thread to die. Ironically, as I have just done!

 

[jason_recliner]

Well you've said many times you're a TL;DR sort of person. So reckon anything over a few paragraphs without pictures would be 'tedious' in your world.

But I look forward to the day you finally post something that shows a modicum of critical thinking or a capacity to look beyond a tabloid headline. A comment with substance and insight rather than juvenile sniping.

Give it a try.

Nah, I'm good with being concise, succinct, and correct.

Give it a try

 

[Kurve]

Let's not have this thread descend to personal insults thanks.

 

[Kurve]

But for Reynolds,so many mis-steps for someone so senior...you rightly point out the Monday meeting...it has always seemed to me that those initial actions were woefully insensitive, and not genuinely compassionate.

From Curve's timeline:
"Monday, April 1

• Ms Higgins meets with Senator Reynolds in the office where the incident allegedly occurred.
• Ms Higgins meets with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) unit at Parliament House."

Just to reiterate, it was not until the meeting on the Monday that Higgins made the allegation of rape. How was Reynolds supposed to know about it beforehand? All she was told is that there was a "security breach".

I think people here are changing the timeline to suit their own prejudices about certain people. Higgins met with the AFP at Brown and Reynolds request that same day. To suggest that it was insensitive and unsympathetic to hold a meeting in her own office is bestowing the skill of clairvoyance upon Reynolds.

Reynolds was told by Brown there was a sexual element in that Higgins woke up and Lehrmann was on top of her.

As Minister for Defence, Reynolds had a lot on her plate and I wouldn't expect to her to expend a heap of genuinely compassionate energy on Higgins but she absolutely should not have called her a 'lying cow'.

It was a mistake to hold the meeting in the alleged rape office, not a hangable offence and too much could be made of it imo but it does indicate carelessness and may go towards Reynolds 'mishandling' the issue.

 

[Kurve]

To be fair and balanced, other people post links to articles about Reynolds' latest heinous travesty in daring to defend herself against defamation, refusing to allow this thread to die.

I'm not quite sure if Reynolds was actually defamed by Higgins now but we'll find out.

 

[Kurve]

Anybody know when the cut off point was for Reynolds in the 'handling' of Higgins complaint? Because it seems to me that Reynolds was up to her eyeballs in it from the first mention by Higgins, through the court process of the rape trial and continuing the 'handling' of it to this day.

 

[Festerz]

 

[Festerz]

Yes- very odd behaviour from a serving Senator. Pretty clear what would happen if a public servant was caught out doing the same thing.

 

[Kurve]

Yes- very odd behaviour from a serving Senator. Pretty clear what would happen if a public servant was caught out doing the same thing.

Reynolds didn't know it was inappropriate for her husband to be sitting in the court each day at the rape trial, wasn't aware it was inappropriate to ask for transcripts and coach the defence.

Albrechtsen would be aware Reynolds was leaking privileged information.

I can't find any reporting on this from the ABC?

 

[Festerz]

Reynolds didn't know it was inappropriate for her husband to be sitting in the court each day at the rape trial, wasn't aware it was inappropriate to ask for transcripts and coach the defence.

Albrechtsen would be aware Reynolds was leaking privileged information.

I can't find any reporting on this from the ABC?

Yes, the ABC silence on this is perplexing. Particularly as it was the ABC, or more specifically Louise Milligan and the Four Corners program 'Inside the Canberra Bubble' which first lifted the lid on abhorrent behaviours and a culture of bullying and sexual harassment within Parliamentary offices.

You might recall they were originally included in the defamation action launched by Bruce Lehrmann following his aborted rape trial but settled for $150k prior to the defamation action commencing in the Federal Court.

Perhaps it was that which led the ABC to take more of a back seat approach to its reporting of the string of legal actions resulting from Brittany Higgins rape. Leaving it to other media organisations to report on things ?

Whatever the reason, given that this latest information from WA Supreme Court discovery documents goes directly to the behaviours of a current serving Federal Senator and Shadow Minister (and former Federal Minister in whose Parliamentary office the rape of Brittany Higgins occurred) its very disappointing to see the ABC not report on this matter, even if just in a summary manner. It's clearly in the public interest and what I would expect to be the core business of the national public broadcaster with a dedicated news service.

 

[Lady O]

Reynolds was told by Brown there was a sexual element in that Higgins woke up and Lehrmann was on top of her.

As Minister for Defence, Reynolds had a lot on her plate and I wouldn't expect to her to expend a heap of genuinely compassionate energy on Higgins but she absolutely should not have called her a 'lying cow'.

It was a mistake to hold the meeting in the alleged rape office, not a hangable offence and too much could be made of it imo but it does indicate carelessness and may go towards Reynolds 'mishandling' the issue.

The "lying cow" comment was in regards to Brown/Reynolds not being supportive and/or her job being threatened.

It wasn't in regards to her rape allegations, which were taken seriously once she had actually told someone about it.

 

[Kurve]

Yes, the ABC silence on this is perplexing. Particularly as it was the ABC, or more specifically Louise Milligan and the Four Corners program 'Inside the Canberra Bubble' which first lifted the lid on abhorrent behaviours and a culture of bullying and sexual harassment within Parliamentary offices.

You might recall they were originally included in the defamation action launched by Bruce Lehrmann following his aborted rape trial but settled for $150k prior to the defamation action commencing in the Federal Court.

Perhaps it was that which led the ABC to take more of a back seat approach to its reporting of the string of legal actions resulting from Brittany Higgins rape. Leaving it to other media organisations to report on things ?

Whatever the reason, given that this latest information from WA Supreme Court discovery documents goes directly to the behaviours of a current serving Federal Senator and Shadow Minister (and former Federal Minister in whose Parliamentary office the rape of Brittany Higgins occurred) its very disappointing to see the ABC not report on this matter, even if just in a summary manner. It's clearly in the public interest and what I would expect to be the core business of the national public broadcaster with a dedicated news service.

Surely they're not restricted from reporting on the Reynolds defamation trial?

 

[Kurve]

The "lying cow" comment was in regards to Brown/Reynolds not being supportive and/or her job being threatened.

Higgins received validation by way of apology and compensation, that isn't going away.

 

[Festerz]

Surely they're not restricted from reporting on the Reynolds defamation trial?

Not legally.

It seems to be an editorial decision.