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

 

[Kurve]

Is this the first time this has come to light?

For Reynolds to be sending text messages to Lehrmann's barrister is so improper I'm struggling to find sufficient adjectives to describe it.

I'm not across absolutely everything that's gone on before but the only text messages I was aware of between Whybrow and Reynolds were those that were exchanged through the rape trial, not prior to, so this might be the first time these particular text messages have come to light.

 

[Festerz]

I'm not across absolutely everything that's gone on before but the only text messages I was aware of between Whybrow and Reynolds were those that were exchanged through the rape trial, not prior to, so this might be the first time these particular text messages have come to light.

Yes those are the ones that had been referenced previously.

Where Senator Reynolds messaged Lehrmann's senior counsel (Whybrow) during his cross examination of Ms Higgins during the rape trial informing Whybrow that texts sent between Ms Higgins and another former member of her ministerial staff (Nicole Hamer) could be “revealing” to the defence.

On their own, this a damning insight into how Reynolds was working to undermine her former staffer and alleged rape victim for the benefit of the alleged rapist Bruce Lehrmann's defence.

Will be interesting to see if it was part of a broader discussion between Reynolds and Lehrmann's barrister.

https://www.afr.com/politics/federa...-sent-lehrmann-s-defence-team-20221017-p5bqfa

 

[GrayRanga]

Yes those are the ones that had been referenced previously.

Where Senator Reynolds messaged Lehrmann's senior counsel (Whybrow) during his cross examination of Ms Higgins during the rape trial trial informing Whybrow that texts sent between Ms Higgins and another former member of her ministerial staff (Nicole Hamer) could be “revealing” to the defence.

On their own, this a damning insight into how Reynolds was working to undermine her former staffer and alleged rape victim for the benefit of the alleged rapist Bruce Lehrmann's defence.

Will be interesting to see if it was part of a broader discussion between Reynolds and Lehrmann's barrister.

https://www.afr.com/politics/federa...-sent-lehrmann-s-defence-team-20221017-p5bqfa

It was mentioned earlier in one of the discussions (you??) something forgetting a hat and scarf

Surely Reynold's legal advisors would have raised this possibilty with her and the probable ramifications of exposure of this to the Court's appraisal at the very least and the impact upon her reputation outside the Court in the Community?

 

[Thats Ambitious]

It may be that Reynolds is successful and is awarded for the damage to the reputation she maintains.... so receives nothing.

 

[MPMonkeys]

Is this the first time this has come to light?

For Reynolds to be sending text messages to Lehrmann's barrister is so improper I'm struggling to find sufficient adjectives to describe it.

Why would it be improper?
Whybrow was just doing what any good barrister should be doing - ie collecting as much information as possible so that his client could be acquitted. Just because Reynolds is a minister does not preclude her from being a witness for the defense or the prosecution for that matter.

In fact, it would be improper of him not to be soliciting for information from any of the key players as it would be doing a disservice to his client.
And we don't even know the content or context of the messages either.

Even the mechanism of the communications would indicate there is nothing to see here. Text messages can be retrieved. If there was something to hide, they would have contacted each other over Signal or Telegraph where communications can be hidden and/or destroyed.

 

[Kurve]

Reynolds lawyers might need some time to consider these new documents the defence now has access to.

Sarah Basford Canales
The defamation trial against Brittany Higgins in the WA supreme court has resumed.

It was due to go to cross-examination of Linda Reynolds but the defence has tendered a bundle of documents, mostly media articles and the subpoena document from the ACT government handed to Higgins’ team this morning.

Reynolds’ lawyer, Martin Bennett, is contemplating whether he will request a short adjournment to consider some of the documents.

 

[Kurve]

Why would it be improper?

Reynolds as a Minister for the crown, seeming to be coaching and text messaging the defence in opposition to the crown's prosecution? Are you serious?

 

[MPMonkeys]

Reynolds as a Minister for the crown, seeming to be coaching and text messaging the defence in opposition to the crown's prosecution? Are you serious?

'Seeming to be coaching'. Thats just an ill-informed guess. Why would a barrister need coaching from a Parliamentarian anyway. Like an AFL player getting playing advice from a country footballer.

If Whybrow believed Reynolds had information that would help his clients defense, then he is ethically obligated to contact her.

 

[Kurve]

'Seeming to be coaching'. Thats just an ill-informed guess. Why would a barrister need coaching from a Parliamentarian anyway. Like an AFL player getting playing advice from a country footballer.

If Whybrow believed Reynolds had information that would help his clients defense, then he is ethically obligated to contact her.

Reynolds was giving the defence tips that would potentially damage Higgins. Reynolds is seen to be working against the crown's prosecution.

We're not talking about whether Whybrow did the wrong thing, you're confused.

 

[Thats Ambitious]

Why would it be improper?
Whybrow was just doing what any good barrister should be doing - ie collecting as much information as possible so that his client could be acquitted. Just because Reynolds is a minister does not preclude her from being a witness for the defense or the prosecution for that matter.

In fact, it would be improper of him not to be soliciting for information from any of the key players as it would be doing a disservice to his client.
And we don't even know the content or context of the messages either.

Even the mechanism of the communications would indicate there is nothing to see here. Text messages can be retrieved. If there was something to hide, they would have contacted each other over Signal or Telegraph where communications can be hidden and/or destroyed.

Wow... where to start....

Reynolds obviously held private and confidential information about the (on balance of probabilities) rape, and about Higgins purely as a result of her position and the meeting(s) she held with Higgins. And then in the middle of a rape trial, Reynolds was sending text messages to the defence about the questions they should ask the (on balance of probabilities) rape victim. You are not seeing a problem with this? You dont see any conflict, any breach of duty, any issue of moral culpability?

If Reynolds was to give information, it should have been done on the witness stand where she could be cross examined. Not in secret text messages to one of the barristers.

 

[FIGJAM]

'Seeming to be coaching'. Thats just an ill-informed guess. Why would a barrister need coaching from a Parliamentarian anyway. Like an AFL player getting playing advice from a country footballer.

I ain't seen the texts to Whybrow, but I'll put my left knacker that they're Reynolds attempting to correct the record on false allegations in her own favour, rather than trying to load Whybrow with ammo for 'credibility destruction' purposes.

As was stated last week, some of Reynolds' reactions to the whole shebang and court presence of her husband can be attributed to internal issues in her own family:

'Every fairytale needs a villain': Linda Reynolds staunchly defends role in Higgins saga, as it happened

The defamation action launched by WA Senator Linda Reynolds against Brittany Higgins and her partner David Sharaz is now underway in Perth. Here's how the first day unfolded.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Festerz]

Wow... where to start....

Can I make a suggestion for your own sanity in dealing with certain posters (this one has just come back from a suspension from BF btw).

You don't start. You ignore. Otherwise...

 

[Thats Ambitious]

I ain't seen the texts to Whybrow, but I'll put my left knacker that they're Reynolds attempting to correct the record on false allegations in her own favour, rather than trying to load Whybrow with ammo for 'credibility destruction' purposes.

I believe that there was the text message directing Whybrow to ask a certain question? If thats wrong I'm happy to be corrected.

Look, the motivation could have been Reynolds in full arse covering mode (i.e. "I want the transcript so I can see if she dobbed on me"), but that is still irrelevant.

At the end of the day, you have a senior member of parliament, with confidential and possibly privileged information that she only holds as a result of her position and interactions with the victim, text messaging the barrister for the defence before and during a rape trial for an alleged rape (that was subsequently found to have taken place on the balance of probabilities) that took place in her office!

You can slice it and dice it anyway you want, but it is improper and should not have happened. I'll repeat that I wont be surprised if Reynolds gets an award for damage to the reputation she has, which is nothing.

 

[Kurve]

Sarah Basford Canales

The Western Australia supreme court has been shown a series of text messages sent between Liberal senator Linda Reynolds and Bruce Lehrmann’s then-barrister Steven Whybrow in the lead up to the 2022 criminal trial in the ACT.

The documents, which were subpoenaed by the defence yesterday and delivered to both legal teams this morning, showed interactions between the two over a period between 1 June 2022 and 31 December 2022.

In one message, pointed to by Reynolds’ lawyer, Martin Bennett, the former defence minister texted a picture of herself and employees of the space agency in a jacket. Higgins was allegedly seen wearing the jacket after she left Reynolds’ office after being allegedly r*ped by Bruce Lehrmann.

The court heard on Wednesday morning Whybrow and Reynolds had a pre-trial meeting in July 2022. Whybrow had allegedly raised whether Reynolds’ jacket had been placed in a “seconds bin”. Reynolds told Bennett on Wednesday she believed she had lost it.

Another text message in the thread, not referred to directly by Bennett, showed Whybrow texted the senator on 23 September 2022: “Hang in there...karma comes to those that wait”.

On 6 October 2022, when the criminal trial had begun, another text message showed Reynolds texted a picture of Higgins in a white outfit to Whybrow, followed by another picture of Kate Middleton in a similar outfit.

Reynolds told the court on Wednesday afternoon the text was “probably a little catty”, conceding she might have been “overly sensitive” about Higgins imitating Middleton’s attire.

 

[Kurve]

I ain't seen the texts to Whybrow, but I'll put my left knacker that they're Reynolds attempting to correct the record on false allegations in her own favour, rather than trying to load Whybrow with ammo for 'credibility destruction' purposes.

I hope your right knacker is still in good working order.

 

[FIGJAM]

You can slice it and dice it anyway you want, but it is improper and should not have happened.

I agree with you on the statement that if Reynolds was messing with privileged info to aid Lehrmann's lawyer, then she can GAGF.

However, I reckon if anyone is making false allegations against someone else that could be tested there and then, then my take is that the false accusee should be able to defend themselves.

 

[FIGJAM]

I hope your right knacker is still in good working order.

From what you posted, Reynolds is disputing the potentially false claim that the Zampatti jacket was in the charity bin.

As I've said before, it's the only matter Justice Lee didn't get to the bottom of!

 

[DapperDon]

Completely normal for a witness to be sending "catty" texts to the lawyer of a now rapist.

 

[Kurve]

From what you posted, Reynolds is disputing the potentially false claim that the Zampatti jacket was in the charity bin.

As I've said before, it's the only matter Justice Lee didn't get to the bottom of!

So Reynolds WAS trying to discredit Higgins then, over a jacket. But that's not all she was texting about through her exchange with Whybrow, is it?

 

[Festerz]

I believe that there was the text message directing Whybrow to ask a certain question?

Correct. This has been discussed in detail here previously.

From the Australian Financial Review article of 17 October 2022 which I cut and paste here (in italics) against BF rules but I think it's important for you to understand the context and make up your own mind and to correct the post event revisioning of events that seems to be taking place in some posts. It is from the the transcript of Reynolds cross examination and subsequent evidence produced in the Sofronoff Inquiry in relation to that cross examination.

In addition to the messaging between Reynolds and Lehrmann's barrister there is also a revelation in Reynolds evidence that directly contradicts what she has said subsequently about when she found out about the alleged rape. But I'll leave it for you to work that out.

'Two hours into Brittany Higgins’ cross-examination in the rape trial of her one-time colleague Bruce Lehrmann, former defence minister Linda Reynolds sent a text to the defence barrister."

'Due to be a witness later in the case in the ACT Supreme Court, the West Australian Liberal senator asked for transcripts showing what Ms Higgins, her former staffer, had told the court.'

'That unusual move, requested in a text message to barrister Steven Whybrow, was one of a series of revelations heard on Monday afternoon.'

'Senator Reynolds messaged Mr Whybrow that texts sent between Ms Higgins and another former member of her ministerial staff, Nicole Hamer, could be “revealing” to the defence.'

The ACT Supreme Court was also told Senator Reynold’s partner had been observing large parts of the trial from the public gallery.

Prosecutor Shane Drumgold, SC, asked Senator Reynolds why she had sought the transcripts of Ms Higgins’ evidence.
“Because I was curious to know what had been said, but I was advised by my lawyer that that was not appropriate,” she told the court.

Mr Drumgold asked Senator Reynolds whether she had talked about the case with her partner.

“My lawyer has been very clear with him not to discuss it with me,” Senator Reynolds said.


Mr Drumgold said Senator Reynolds was “attempting to coach the cross-examination”,


“That’s not what I was seeking to do,” she said, explaining she had never been part of a criminal trial before and was unsure of how the process worked.


Note that Australian newspaper's conservative commentator Janet Albrechtsen had described Drumgold's cross examination of Senator Reynolds as inappropriate in her daily reporting briefings - a view that was echoed in Wally Sofronoff's subsequent 'independent' inquiry into the Lehrmann criminal trial.

Justice Kaye's judicial review of the Soffronoff Inquiry found Sofronoff’s finding that Drumgold had acted with “grossly unethical conduct” during his cross-examination of the retiring Liberal senator Linda Reynolds “legally unreasonable”. He was entitled to treat Reynolds as a hostile witness. I think any reasonable and independent observer can see why.

 

[FIGJAM]

So Reynolds WAS trying to discredit Higgins then, over a jacket. But that's not all she was doing through her exchange with Whybrow, is it?

Reynolds was trying to not look like a liar in front of her own family, whether that was due to the "charity bin" jacket, or the reappearance of the white dress, or the photos in Perth that show Higgins having a good time and being well-supported.

Like I said, her motives are are about amending the false accusations, with the main one being that Higgins was asked to choose between her career and pursuing a rape claim. If Reynolds calls our some lies on the smaller things, then it goes to getting a win on the bigger one.

But that 'bigger win' ain't getting Bruce off; it's purely about her and her reputation, not only externally, but to her own family. Now that may well be selfish as ****, but I'd be guessing that none of us have ever had false accusations of this magnitude made against us.

 

[GrayRanga]

I ain't seen the texts to Whybrow, but I'll put my left knacker that they're Reynolds attempting to correct the record on false allegations in her own favour, rather than trying to load Whybrow with ammo for 'credibility destruction' purposes.

As was stated last week, some of Reynolds' reactions to the whole shebang and court presence of her husband can be attributed to internal issues in her own family:


View attachment 2071379

'Every fairytale needs a villain': Linda Reynolds staunchly defends role in Higgins saga, as it happened

The defamation action launched by WA Senator Linda Reynolds against Brittany Higgins and her partner David Sharaz is now underway in Perth. Here's how the first day unfolded.

www.abc.net.au

Doesn't matter about her external factors or pressures

She was a witness to a Crown Prosecution for a charge of rape, which, a century or so ago was a capital offence.

Witnesses give either an Oath or affirmation that they will answer each question truthfully

Now, under Australian Court rules are witnesses allowed in the Court room before they give evidence? Heres a hint; no ****ing way

She was asking her partner to text highlights of other's testimony which she was reinterpreting and messaging to the Defence team? I believed she asked for copies of the day's transcripts to be provided to her

The defence team that was defending her previous employee?

Did she message the Prosecution team with the same observations and hints? If not, why not?

Was she trying to preserve her own or the Coalition's reputation at the sake of Justice for a woman who was allegedly r*ped in her office by a more senior member of her staff

She failed to provide her staff member with a healthy and safe workplace.

And now she's trying to recoup some of the compensation payment from the victim

She was a Senator, a Minister amd a Member of Cabinet amd she was ultimately responsible for all her staff.

She was also responsible as a Senator from WA for the people of that State and ultimately for all Australians

 

[FIGJAM]

Doesn't matter about her external factors or pressures

She was a witness to a Crown Prosecution for a charge of rape, which, a century or so ago was a capital offence.

Witnesses give either an Oath or affirmation that they will answer each question truthfully

Now, under Australian Court rules are witnesses allowed in the Court room before they give evidence? Heres a hint; no ****ing way

She was asking her partner to text highlights of other's testimony which she was reinterpreting and messaging to the Defence team? I believed she asked for copies of the day's transcripts to be provided to her

The defence team that was defending her previous employee?

Did she message the Prosecution team with the same observations and hints? If not, why not?

Was she trying to preserve her own or the Coalition's reputation at the sake of Justice for a woman who was allegedly r*ped in her office by a more senior member of her staff

She failed to provide her staff member with a healthy and safe workplace.

And now she's trying to recoup some of the compensation payment from the victim

She was a Senator, a Minister amd a Member of Cabinet amd she was ultimately responsible for all her staff.

She was also responsible as a Senator from WA for the people of that State and ultimately for all Australians

I appreciate a lot of that, although I do think some of it is a bit OTT.

I'm just trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who has had demonstrably false allegations made about them and how I'd act.

What I find funny is how quickly politicians are held up as a 'bastion of morality' in one breath and then classed as "the snake pit" in the next breath. We're dealing with normal humans here.

I backed Brown's choices and methods, even though I would have done things differently. She ultimately has had a nervous breakdown from this.

I'm not backing Reynolds' current legal action, as well as some other things that she's done. But she's made the choice to clear her name from false accusations and that is something that is very human and that I can understand.

 

[Kurve]

Reynolds claims Kitching told her about the plan to ambush her in February 2021. Kitching wrote to Keneally denying Reynolds claim in June, 2021.

Kitching may she RIP, passed away in March 2022, over one full year later.

Here, Kitching calls Reynolds a turkey. October 2021.

 

[Kurve]

Sarah Basford Canales
Linda Reynolds says she never “agreed” to keep private two confidential letters relating to Brittany Higgins’ civil claims she leaked to a columnist at The Australian, a court has heard.

The two letters sent to Reynolds’ lawyer in June and December 2022 - both marked confidential and subject to legal professional privilege - outlined the proposed terms of Reynolds’ involvement in the civil claim.

Higgins settled a personal injury claim against the government on 12 December 2022. It was later revealed in the Bruce Lehrmann defamation trial the settlement amounted to $2.445m.

In the June letter, the Commonwealth’s legal team requested all parties to keep details confidential.

In the December letter, Reynolds was instructed not to attend mediation with Higgins, make any public comment, and maintain confidentiality so the Commonwealth would be in “best position to achieve a resolution”.

Reynolds asked Higgins’ lawyer, Rachael Young SC, to repeat her questions on a number of occasions when being asked whether she understood the meaning of legal professional privilege and the parliamentary business resources regulation.

The senator claimed she had some understanding but added the letters showed the federal government “wanted to lock me down”.

On the morning of 12 December 2022, the day of the mediation, Reynolds used her personal Gmail account to send the June letter to the Australian columnist, Janet Albrechtsen.

Reynolds told the court she had never “signed” the letter and therefore was not subject to its confidentiality clause.

Young disputed this, pointing to the regulations and passages within the letters instructing her not to.

“What was top of my mind was the fact that I was not going to sign [it],” Reynolds said. “I hadn’t signed an agreement to be locked down.”

Albrechtsen and another journalist published an article on the Australian website, dated 14 December 2022 - the next day.