Updated Bruce Lehrmann Pt2 * Reynolds Defamation Trial Current

[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]

Bit like Lehrmann?

Birds of a feather......stick together!

 

[Kurve]

Here's Reynolds speaking outside the court.

How does she reconcile this statement with the many text messages exchanged with Whybrow through the criminal trial and her recent Spotlight interview where she agreed with Liam Bartlett, that Higgins may not have been a victim of a crime?

She defended the decision to launch legal action against Ms Higgins, who she acknowledged had been r*ped in Parliament House.

“It’s important to note that I’ve never doubted or contradicted (Ms Higgins’ rape allegations), in fact I did everything I could to support the allegations,” she said.

https://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/brittany-higgins-labelled-arrogant-for-suggesting-she-was-the-person-most-affected-by-her-rape-allegation/news-story/e6c3391be1251e100b84c9f5510df2a9

 

[Festerz]

omg, LR wants 675,000.

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/western-australia/brittany-higgins-labelled-arrogant-for-suggesting-she-was-the-person-most-affected-by-her-rape-allegation/news-story/062b2692a452fa49aee88255bff56828

And a reminder that figure was what Reynolds' lawyer described as 'the starting point' which was the figure paid out to former NSW Nationals leader John Barilaro over the FriendlyJordies videos.

It also does not include legal costs which are expected to be in the multiple millions of dollars for Reynolds' legal team and close to $1m for the Higgins defence.

 

[Kurve]

Reynolds, after saying multiple times that Higgins should have agency and tell her story, also seeks a permanent injunction.

A “substantial” payout should be given to Linda Reynolds along with a permanent injunction to prevent Brittany Higgins from making any further disparaging remarks, a court has heard.

Linda Reynolds’ lawyer suggests substantial damages to ‘restrain’ Higgins from telling ‘her truth’

The five-week defamation trial is scheduled to conclude after Reynolds’ lawyer Martin Bennett delivers his final remarks

www.theguardian.com

 

[Kurve]

And a reminder that figure was what Reynolds' lawyer described as 'the starting point' which was the figure paid out to former NSW Nationals leader John Barilaro over the FriendlyJordies videos.

It also does not include legal costs which are expected to be in the multiple millions of dollars for Reynolds' legal team and close to $1m for the Higgins defence.

That figure of $675,000 gives us an idea of what Reynolds would have demanded as a starting point off Higgins, should Higgins have capitulated and apologised.

 

[Festerz]

Interesting article from news.com.au editor Sam Maiden today on the varied claims in the Reynolds' defamation trial.

She has touched on a point every media article and several posters in this thread have missed about the exact nature of Reynolds' defamation action:

'This defamation trial and what it is actually about has been profoundly misunderstood'

'One of the reasons, imo, is the regrettable practice of the WA Supreme Court to not publicly release the statement of claim and and the defence's response from the start - the legal document laying out what the case is actually about.'

'In recent weeks there have been media reports from reputable outlets that Ms Higgins was "pleading truth and so must prove a cover up"'

WRONG.

'There are NO pleadings from Ms Higgins lawyers arguing there was a 'cover up' of rape.'

Ms Maiden then goes on to highlight that the use of the words 'cover up' was from a suggestions being pushed by Mr Sharaz in The Project interview and were not mentioned in Maiden's recordings and discussions with Ms Higgins.

 

[big_e]

Here's Reynolds speaking outside the court.

How does she reconcile this statement with the many text messages exchanged with Whybrow through the criminal trial and her recent Spotlight interview where she agreed with Liam Bartlett, that Higgins may not have been a victim of a crime?

She defended the decision to launch legal action against Ms Higgins, who she acknowledged had been r*ped in Parliament House.

“It’s important to note that I’ve never doubted or contradicted (Ms Higgins’ rape allegations), in fact I did everything I could to support the allegations,” she said.

https://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/brittany-higgins-labelled-arrogant-for-suggesting-she-was-the-person-most-affected-by-her-rape-allegation/news-story/e6c3391be1251e100b84c9f5510df2a9

Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on that one:

Ms Maiden told the court she had an hour long phone conversation with Senator Reynolds in mid 2022 in which she asked whether Ms Higgins's allegation that she'd been sexually assaulted by Bruce Lehrmann in the Senator's office was true.

""And she said 'I've got no idea, I wasn't in that room, I don't know'," Ms Maiden told the court.

'Greatest moments in journalism': Texts between Brittany Higgins and reporter who broke story aired

News Corporation journalist Samantha Maiden gives evidence in the defamation action launched by Linda Reynolds against Brittany Higgins over a series of social media posts the senator believes were defamatory.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Festerz]

That figure of $675,000 gives us an idea of what Reynolds would have demanded as a starting point off Higgins, should Higgins have capitulated and apologised.

Yes - but added to that must be the legal costs incurred by Reynolds' for taking legal action against her- costs that media reports indicated were already in excess of $1m BEFORE the defamation trial commenced.

We will know soon enough what the settlement demands from Senator Reynolds were for this matter not to proceed to court and what Ms Higgins counter offer was, if any. But I would be surprised if Reynolds' was demanding much less than $1m including costs to settle.

As Sam Maiden comments in the article referenced above:

'Soon the outcome of this enormous legal gamble will be writ large. Senator Reynolds decided the only way to restore her reputation was to take the trial all the way to the WA Supreme Court. Whether or not that was a wise choice will be revealed in due course'.

 

[Kurve]

As a guide to awarding damages, Bennett makes a comparison between a rape victim and a double trillion dollar company Google and Channel 9 at over a billion.

Bennett also asked Western Australia supreme court Justice Paul Tottle to consider recent defamation payouts, that saw damages awarded that exceeded more than half a million dollars.

On Monday, Higgins’ lawyer, Rachael Young SC, said any damages ultimately awarded to Reynolds (should the judge rule in her favour) should be assessed by “how far her reputation has fallen” since mid-2023, not when the allegations publicly aired in February 2021.

Young quoted a British politician, who once said: “For a politician to complain about the press is like a ship’s captain complaining about the sea.” She continued that damages for politicians, whose reputation is often not changed as a result of defamation trials, have historically been quite small.

Young went on to reference a series of payouts, including when Peter Dutton sued a refugee advocate for calling him a “rape apologist” and was awarded $35,000 before it was overturned on appeal.

On Wednesday, Bennett said Young had omitted recent cases where payouts had been much higher, including between former NSW deputy premier John Barilaro and Google, with the former being awarded more than half a million dollars as well as the more than $500,000 awarded to a Papua New Guinea minister by Nine newspapers in 2023.

Linda Reynolds’ lawyer suggests substantial damages to ‘restrain’ Higgins from telling ‘her truth’

The five-week defamation trial is scheduled to conclude after Reynolds’ lawyer Martin Bennett delivers his final remarks

www.theguardian.com

 

[BFew]

As a guide to awarding damages, Bennett makes a comparison between a rape victim and a double trillion dollar company Google and Channel 9 at over a billion.

Bennett also asked Western Australia supreme court Justice Paul Tottle to consider recent defamation payouts, that saw damages awarded that exceeded more than half a million dollars.

On Monday, Higgins’ lawyer, Rachael Young SC, said any damages ultimately awarded to Reynolds (should the judge rule in her favour) should be assessed by “how far her reputation has fallen” since mid-2023, not when the allegations publicly aired in February 2021.

Young quoted a British politician, who once said: “For a politician to complain about the press is like a ship’s captain complaining about the sea.” She continued that damages for politicians, whose reputation is often not changed as a result of defamation trials, have historically been quite small.

Young went on to reference a series of payouts, including when Peter Dutton sued a refugee advocate for calling him a “rape apologist” and was awarded $35,000 before it was overturned on appeal.

On Wednesday, Bennett said Young had omitted recent cases where payouts had been much higher, including between former NSW deputy premier John Barilaro and Google, with the former being awarded more than half a million dollars as well as the more than $500,000 awarded to a Papua New Guinea minister by Nine newspapers in 2023.

Linda Reynolds’ lawyer suggests substantial damages to ‘restrain’ Higgins from telling ‘her truth’

The five-week defamation trial is scheduled to conclude after Reynolds’ lawyer Martin Bennett delivers his final remarks

www.theguardian.com

What's the difference between Brittany Higgins and Google's parent (Alphabet)?

"Google Assistant" probably says about USD $2 trillion, 180,000 employees, and that Higgins probably has no reason to play dead to Reynolds demands in order to curry political favour with the libs, and not put them too offside.

 

[GrayRanga]

Yes - but added to that must be the legal costs incurred by Reynolds' for taking legal action against her- costs that media reports indicated were already in excess of $1m BEFORE the defamation trial commenced.

We will know soon enough what the settlement demands from Senator Reynolds were for this matter not to proceed to court and what Ms Higgins counter offer was, if any. But I would be surprised if Reynolds' was demanding much less than $1m including costs to settle.

As Sam Maiden comments in the article referenced above:

'Soon the outcome of this enormous legal gamble will be writ large. Senator Reynolds decided the only way to restore her reputation was to take the trial all the way to the WA Supreme Court. Whether or not that was a wise choice will be revealed in due course'.

Slightly off topic, but imagine a wealthy Multi national company (making things that go bang) seeking to employ someone with experience and expertise (?) as a Brigadier in the Armed Forces in supply, who has the Ministerial positions of Minister of Defense Industries and Minister for Defence.

Her pre retirement plans post Senate were set in gold

When she was demoted to Minister for Government Services in March 1991, the furore about the rape allegations and the Coalition's loss of government, that career progression went away like a balloon pricked by a pin.

She obiously believes she was a victim, not of a sexual assault, but the convegance of events that destroyed her career plans.

Higgins was paid out 2.4 million, partially for loss of her career and loss of future earnings; Reynolds received nothing.

She is after her payout, and I would suggest that she would be happy with the 2.4 no matter how or where she obtains it

Arms manufacturers are not known for being concerned about morality, they still may offer her a job at a reduced pay rate, after all she is damaged goods

 

[jason_recliner]

Things did not appear to go so well for Reynolds and her legal rep today in the summing up in Court.

Brittany Higgins stole Zampatti jacket, Linda Reynolds' lawyer claims

A lawyer for Linda Reynolds has make a stunning accusation against Brittany Higgins regarding the senator's designer jacket.

www.dailymail.co.uk

'...
Mr Bennett told the court it was defamatory of Ms Higgins to say the senator wanted to silence victims of sexual assault.

He said the senator had spoken out about preventing the media from exploiting victims who had made a complaint.

In doing so, the senator pointed to NSW legislation that prevents victims of sexual assault from speaking to the media before a criminal matter is prosecuted.

Mr Bennett told the court no one had said the legislation in NSW was trying to silence victims.

He said it was not a question of silencing victims but rather a complaint should be worked through the criminal justice system.

Justice Paul Tottle interrupted the lawyer, saying the effect of the change in law that was the subject matter of the submission in question, would prevent victims discussing with the media what happened to them.

The judge said the amendment contemplated by the senator would make it a new offence that would prohibit a person, which was close to silence.

Mr Bennett argued the senator's position was to prosecute perpetrators, and not to make it more difficult.
...'

What a ridiculous argument. Reynolds is either pro-rapist and anti-victim, or she isn't. Regardless of your biases against her, one is far more probable than the other.

 

[big_e]

Slightly off topic, but imagine a wealthy Multi national company (making things that go bang) seeking to employ someone with experience and expertise (?) as a Brigadier in the Armed Forces in supply, who has the Ministerial positions of Minister of Defense Industries and Minister for Defence.

Her pre retirement plans post Senate were set in gold

When she was demoted to Minister for Government Services in March 1991, the furore about the rape allegations and the Coalition's loss of government, that career progression went away like a balloon pricked by a pin.

She obiously believes she was a victim, not of a sexual assault, but the convegance of events that destroyed her career plans.

Higgins was paid out 2.4 million, partially for loss of her career and loss of future earnings; Reynolds received nothing.

She is after her payout, and I would suggest that she would be happy with the 2.4 no matter how or where she obtains it

Arms manufacturers are not known for being concerned about morality, they still may offer her a job at a reduced pay rate, after all she is damaged goods

Two issues with that.

Firstly, the average tenure of defence ministers is quite short. Since the First Rudd Government was elected in 2007, we've had ten, and she did better than most.

Smith - 3 years, 4 days
Payne - 2 years, 341 days
Marles - 2 years, 95 days (as of today)
Reynolds - 1 year, 305 days
Fitzgbbon - 1 year, 188 days
Faulkner - 1 year, 97 days
Johnston - 1 year, 96 days
Dutton - 1 year 54 days
Andrews - 0 years, 272 days
Pyne - 0 years, 271 days

And secondly, as Minister for Government Services, she remained in Cabinet, and being in charge of the NDIS opened her up to even more potential future career options than if she stayed solely in defence. It's not as if she was sacked from defence because she was a bad minister, either.

Oh, and if Chris Pyne can get a job with EY in their defence consulting area after being the shortest-tenured defence minister since the guy that did it in the dying days of the Whitlam government, I don't think the senator's job prospects were all that diminished. Not to mention that we actually don't know if she'll suffer any economic loss at all.

 

[Festerz]

What a ridiculous argument. Reynolds is either pro-rapist and anti-victim, or she isn't. Regardless of your biases against her, one is far more probable than the other.

It must be incredibly hard for you to live day to day if you truly believe that human behaviours are fixed indefinitely and are strictly governed by the simplistic binary narrative of either/or.

The reality we all face is that people can demonstrate a wide range of conflicting behaviours and motives depending on the circumstances confronting them. Especially if those circumstances confronting them stir up the the base emotions of greed, envy, resentment and the need for revenge. And if, say, long held career and life goals are threatened or what you think you were entitled to was snatched away.

These facts of human nature apply as much to a young political staffer at the very start of her dream career as a Liberal Party staffer as they do to a seasoned middle aged politician and senior Cabinet Minister in the Federal Government.

IMHO what matters from a moral standpoint in relation to the circumstances of Senator Reynolds vs Brittany Higgins is the comparative legitimacy of their resentment and anger at what happened to them and whether what has fuelled that resentment and anger has a basis in truth. But moral ethics will have almost no role to play in the legal decision making of this case.

 

[jason_recliner]

It must be incredibly hard for you to live day to day...

I do alright but enough about me...

Higgins' post clearly implied that Reynolds is anti-victim - she wants to "silence victims". It's absolutely implausible that Reynolds introduced that bill with that intention, because what else could drive such motivation other than being being anti-victim (and, accordingly, pro-rapist).

 

[jason_recliner]

... if Chris Pyne can get a job with EY in their defence consulting area after being the shortest-tenured defence minister since the guy that did it in the dying days of the Whitlam government, I don't think the senator's job prospects were all that diminished.

Steady on! He's a fixer! He fixes things! He fixed it!

 

[Festerz]

Higgins' post clearly implied that Reynolds is anti-victim - she wants to "silence victims". It's absolutely implausible that Reynolds introduced that bill with that intention, because what else could drive such motivation other than being being anti-victim (and, accordingly, pro-rapist).

Senator Reynolds provided information to Bruce Lehrmann's lawyer during his criminal trial for the rape of Brittany Higgins, and subsequently admitted both she and her partner subsequently deleted any messages between them for what she called 'cyber hygeine' reasons.

Senator Reynolds provided untruthful evidence about when she knew about the alleged rape of Ms Higgins during the criminal trial of Ms Higgins alleged rapist Bruce Lehrmann.

Senator Reynolds admits to having deliberately leaked private and confidential information about Ms Higgins, a rape surviver, to Janet Albrechtsen for publication in the Australian newspaper..

Senator Reynolds sought to punish two other rape survivors by attempting to force them to give evidence in court about their role in raising money for Ms Higgins legal expenses.

Senator Reynolds is seeking a substantial payout from Ms Higgins and a permanent injunction preventing her from ever speaking publicly on her post rape personal experience as a junior staffer with Senator Reynolds.

Senator Reynolds is seeking to 'restore her reputation' by laying the blame for the loss of that reputation at the feet of one of her most junior staffers who had been r*ped.

Yep, you're absolutely right. WA Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds is in no way 'anti -victim'. (unless of course that victim is Brittany Higgins - a young staffer found by a court to have been r*ped in Senator Reynolds own office by another one of her staffers).

But rest easy, Because more importantly, as almost all of these actions by Senator Reynolds occurred subsequent to the social media texts that lie at the centre of Senator Reynolds defamation claims, they will not be taken into account in Justice Tottle's decision.

 

[jason_recliner]

Senator Reynolds provided information to Bruce Lehrmann's lawyer during his criminal trial for the rape of Brittany Higgins, and subsequently admitted both she and her partner subsequently deleted any messages between them for what she called 'cyber hygeine' reasons.

Senator Reynolds provided untruthful evidence about when she knew about the alleged rape of Ms Higgins during the criminal trial of Ms Higgins alleged rapist Bruce Lehrmann.

Senator Reynolds admits to having deliberately leaked private and confidential information about Ms Higgins, a rape surviver, to Janet Albrechtsen for publication in the Australian newspaper..

Senator Reynolds sought to punish two other rape survivors by attempting to force them to give evidence in court about their role in raising money for Ms Higgins legal expenses.

Senator Reynolds is seeking a substantial payout from Ms Higgins and a permanent injunction preventing her from ever speaking publicly on her post rape personal experience as a junior staffer with Senator Reynolds.

Senator Reynolds is seeking to 'restore her reputation' by laying the blame for the loss of that reputation at the feet of one of her most junior staffers who had been r*ped.

Yep, you're absolutely right. WA Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds is in no way 'anti -victim'. (unless of course that victim is Brittany Higgins - a young staffer found by a court to have been r*ped in Senator Reynolds own office by another one of her staffers).

But rest easy, Because more importantly, as almost all of these actions by Senator Reynolds occurred subsequent to the social media texts that lie at the centre of Senator Reynolds defamation claims, they will not be taken into account in Justice Tottle's decision.

So you think she introduced the bill not because she's anti-victim/pro-rapist, and wants to silence victims, but to get back at Higgins. Righto.

 

[Festerz]

So you think she introduced the bill not because she's anti-victim/pro-rapist, and wants to silence victims, but to get back at Higgins. Righto.

Did I type that? No - you did, twice now. And you still don't seem to comprehend the points being made by me and others about your tendency to slip into simple binary either/or narratives.

 

[jason_recliner]

Did I type that?

View attachment 2101216

Essentially. It is implied by your post.

 

[FIGJAM]

So you think she introduced the bill not because she's anti-victim/pro-rapist, and wants to silence victims, but to get back at Higgins. Righto.

Reynolds' motivations are obvious to the cough "critical thinkers" in this thread; and that is that the majority of Reynolds' most dubious actions are reactionary to the false allegations made against her by Sharaz and Higgins.

....Reynolds’ submission to the ACT board of inquiry, helmed by Walter Sofronoff, who was conducting a review of how the 2022 criminal trial was handled.

The submission argued for the criminalisation in the ACT of those attempting to publicise alleged sexual crimes through the media or the parliament to “advance their own interests” and at “risk of hindering a court”.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/art...ttany-higgins-defamation-trial-verdict-ntwnfb

Some would have you believe that Reynolds was arguing in favour of a pre-Grace Tame set up like what they had in Tasmania before the #LetHerSpeak campaign, whereby victims were completely silenced in perpetuity.

I disagree with two things here:

1. Reynolds' submission;
2. Tottle's quote that it is "close to silence".

Reynolds' submission was clearly to stop anyone putting the 'cart before the horse' and spouting "their truth" before anyone including the police has even had a chance to test any of the claims.

I however vehemently disagree with Reynolds on her submission, as there needs to be that avenue via investigative journalism, because there may (or will!) be that time where there actually is a cover-up.

I also disagree with Tottle's "close to silence" statement, as it is clearly not an all-encompassing silence. It's a cry-out for upfront pause while some basic facts are checked by appropriate authorities; then once the charge is laid the alleged victim can say what they want before, after or during the trial.

I cannot agree with freedom of speech strongly enough. But I also think that you can clearly abuse that right.

 

[Kurve]

Reynolds' motivations are obvious to the cough "critical thinkers" in this thread; and that is that the majority of Reynolds' most dubious actions are reactionary to the false allegations made against her by Sharaz and Higgins.





Some would have you believe that Reynolds was arguing in favour of a pre-Grace Tame set up like what they had in Tasmania before the #LetHerSpeak campaign, whereby victims were completely silenced in perpetuity.

I disagree with two things here:

1. Reynolds' submission;
2. Tottle's quote that it is "close to silence".

Reynolds' submission was clearly to stop anyone putting the 'cart before the horse' and spouting "their truth" before anyone including the police has even had a chance to test any of the claims.

I however vehemently disagree with Reynolds on her submission, as there needs to be that avenue via investigative journalism, because there may (or will!) be that time where there actually is a cover-up.

I also disagree with Tottle's "close to silence" statement, as it is clearly not an all-encompassing silence. It's a cry-out for upfront pause while some basic facts are checked by appropriate authorities; then once the charge is laid the alleged victim can say what they want before, after or during the trial.

I cannot agree with freedom of speech strongly enough. But I also think that you can clearly abuse that right.

Very few sexual assault crimes result in charges, why should victims be bound to silence? Victims of sexual assault or any other crime, should be free to speak whenever and wherever they please. It's once charges are laid and pending a court outcome, they might prefer silence and as is sure to be advised by the police.

Given Reynold's history and her behaviour, I don't buy it that her submission was about protecting the process. It's laughable, why was this even on her mind and why this particular submission? She wanted law passed that would have protected her, not anybody else. IMO.

Linda Reynolds is all about Linda Reynolds.

We probably wouldn't even know there was a rapist working for the Minister for Defence if Higgins hadn't gone to the press.

If Reynolds submission had got through, we wouldn't know that hypocrite David Van had sexually harassed Lidia Thorpe and he'd still be speaking in Parliament good-bloking himself, spruiking as a champion for women and culture change when he was the problem!

 

[jason_recliner]

Very few sexual assault crimes result in charges, why should they be bound to silence? Victims of sexual assault or any other crime, should be free to speak whenever and wherever they please. It's once charges are laid and pending a court outcome, they might prefer silence and as is sure to be advised by the police.

Given Reynold's history and her behaviour, I don't buy it that the submission was about protecting the process. It's laughable, why was this even on her mind and why this particular bill? She wanted law passed that would have protected her, not anybody else!

Linda Reynolds is all about Linda Reynolds.

We probably wouldn't even know there was a rapist working for the Minister for Defence if Higgins hadn't gone to the press.

If Reynolds submission had got through, we wouldn't know that hypocrite David Van had sexually harassed Lidia Thorpe and he'd still be speaking in Parliament good bloking himself spruiking as a champion for women and culture change when he was the problem!

How does the bill protect Reynolds?

 

[BFew]

One of the Lehrmann cases is back in court tomorrow morning.

 

[BFew]

A no show for Burrows on the weekend.

Apparently she's afraid of witches.

Her Lehrmann being arguably the most hated man in Australia meme, sounds more like a wild unsubstantiated claim to try sew the seeds of a fair upcoming trial for Lehrmann, being an impossibility, and that he has been punished enough already by Australia, and thus requires a lesser actual sentence if he is ever criminally convicted of anything whatsoever in the future.

Why Bruce Lehrmann’s high-profile lawyer dropped out of men’s rights conference

Colourful solicitor Zali Burrows, who says Lehrmann is ‘arguably the most hated man in Australia’, skipped a conference hosted by Bettina Arndt.

www.smh.com.au

'Why Bruce Lehrmann’s high-profile lawyer dropped out of men’s rights conference'​

'September 4, 2024 — 5.00am
...
Men’s rights activist Bettina Arndt’s ”presumption of innocence” conference held in Sydney on the weekend fizzled after the star attraction, colourful lawyer Zali Burrows, who’s representing Bruce Lehrmann in his defamation appeal, failed to show.

Arndt, best known for publicly defending the man jailed for raping former Australian of the Year Grace Tame, initially booked Lehrmann as a speaker, before the former Liberal staffer pulled out after Federal Court judge Michael Lee found, on the balance of probabilities, that he’d r*ped former colleague Brittany Higgins.

Despite being added to the program, Burrows – a one-time United Australia Party candidate better known for a colourful criminal defence client list that includes convicted fraudster Salim Mehajer and various underworld identities – was nowhere to be seen at Rushcutters Bay on Saturday.

Arndt told attendees Burrows was being intimidated by “the witches, the mad feminists on social media”.

And on Tuesday, the solicitor said she’d “regrettably” pulled out of the conference after being “bullied, intimidated and threatened”.

“I have put up with a lot in the past from nut jobs and stalkers, I thought better to stay home to paint my nails than to compromise my safety,” she told CBD in a statement, adding she was concerned about jeopardising her work for Lehrmann by getting involved in a controversial conference.

“Further I am mindful of the harassment and criticism I am receiving for representing Bruce Lehrmann in his defamation appeal, which he is arguably the most hated man in Australia,” she said.

“I did not want to compromise any position of advocacy,” she told CBD.

But attendees did hear from a special “mystery speaker” – Vanessa Scammell, partner of actor Craig McLachlan who dropped a defamation case against this masthead, the ABC and former co-star Christie Whelan Browne over allegations of sexual harassment during a production of the Rocky Horror Show 10 days into the trial.
...'