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

 

[campbell]

File details - applications for file

View attachment 2109680

View attachment 2109679

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/major-update-in-bruce-lehrmanns-appeal-against-defamation-loss-to-ten-lisa-wilkinson-revealed/news-story/252bbe708edb4033bdaec520214a217c

'...
now appealing “the whole” of Justice Michael Lee’s judgment
...
he has now launched an appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court.
...
Mr Lehrmann’s appeal is now focusing on the defence of justification, according to an update to the Federal Court file.

He now says the primary judge “erred in upholding the defence of justification” and in “determining the respondent had established the defence of justification”.

Mr Lehrmann also claims Justice Lee was wrong to say that had he won, he would only have been awarded $20,000.'
...
In his notice of appeal filed with the court, Mr Lehrmann claims he was denied procedural fairness and challenged Justice Lee’s findings.

He has also claimed that Justice Lee made findings that were neither advanced by Network 10 and Ms Wilkinson, nor put to him in cross examination.'

Who is funding this?

Denied Procedural fairness, my oh my.....ye na.

 

[BFew]

Who is funding this?

Denied Procedural fairness, my oh my.....ye na.

Maybe Lehrmann has signed an IOU with them, that requires him to legally represent them for free in future, if they so require, and only if he obtains the legal qualifications required to do so.

 

[Kurve]

Australian Federal Police officers sue former ACT top prosecutor for defamation​

• In short: A group of five Australian Federal Police officers has filed a defamation claim in the Federal Court against the ACT's former Director of Public Prosecutions, Shane Drumgold.
• The officers are seeking almost $1.5 million and claim Mr Drumgold defamed them by alleging they pressured him not to pursue the prosecution of former Liberal staffer Bruce Lehrmann.
• In their statement of claim, the officers say Mr Drumgold made eight defamatory claims about them, including that they bullied Brittany Higgins and interfered in the prosecution.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05...er-lehrmann-prosecution-allegations/103781372

Going back through the thread to make sure I haven't missed anything that needs to be moderated and this jumped out at me.

I don't think we aired this in here:

Federal court dismisses defamation claim by AFP officers against Shane Drumgold

Officers had sought $1.42m in damages, claiming former ACT chief prosecutor defamed them in complaint about Bruce Lehrmann prosecution

www.theguardian.com

 

[BFew]

Going back through the thread to make sure I haven't missed anything that needs to be moderated and this jumped out at me.

I don't think we aired this in here:

Federal court dismisses defamation claim by AFP officers against Shane Drumgold

Officers had sought $1.42m in damages, claiming former ACT chief prosecutor defamed them in complaint about Bruce Lehrmann prosecution

www.theguardian.com

The AFP officers withdrew their case.

'Guardian Australia understands the case was withdrawn by the applicants, a group of police led by Det Insp Marcus Boorman. The court ordered the applicants pay Drumgold’s costs of $12,500.'

 

[Festerz]

The AFP officers withdrew their case.

'Guardian Australia understands the case was withdrawn by the applicants, a group of police led by Det Insp Marcus Boorman. The court ordered the applicants pay Drumgold’s costs of $12,500.'

iirc I thought that the application against Drumgold by the group of officers had a reasonable chance of success under ACT Defamation laws because it centred around the 'publication' by public release of a letter he wrote to the head of the AFP that was damning of the actions of the officers involved.

It would have been up to Drumgold to prove that the release of that letter was not defamatory - either using the public interest or truth defences.

I'm convinced that the officers dropped their action because of what they feared would be revealed in a very public defamation trial about their behaviours as individuals and as a group during the course of the BVruce Lehrmann rape investigation and criminal trial.

Especially given the timing of their decision to withdraw their action coincided with corruption charges being laid against one of them (Leading Senior Constable Madders who was a member of the ACT Joint Anti-Child Exploitation Team and was a senior leader of the Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Team involved in investigating the Brittany Higgins rape allegations).

Madders, who gave evidence to the Sofronoff Inquiry into the ACT Criminal Justice System, has been charged with perjury, concealing evidence and attempting to pervert the course of justice:

AFP officer suspended from duty, charged with perjury and perverting the course of justice

Prosecutors allege Detective Leading Senior Constable Trent Madders committed the offences between 2019 and 2020.

www.abc.net.au

 

[FIGJAM]

I'm convinced that the officers dropped their action because of what they feared would be revealed in a very public defamation trial about their behaviours as individuals and as a group during the course of the BVruce Lehrmann rape investigation and criminal trial.

Nah!!

I'm "convinced" that they've realised just how fraught defamation cases are in light of Lehrmann and Reynolds' forays, with regards to general expenses and that even if the court may finds in your favour, they may not necessarily award costs.

The ACT police did an excellent job and correctly raised their credibility concerns with the Higgins (the 2021 version). Justice Lee also rightly raised those credibility concerns in his judgement.

Shane Drumgold chose not to listen to the police and proceed with the charges, all while he was in the mindset that there was a political conspiracy, which he admitted to and has has now recanted his view on this.

Drumgold's treatment of the police was undeniably defamatory and when combined with some of his other political interference claims, one would suspect that he wrote the letter wearing a tin foil hat.

 

[Kurve]

Shane Drumgold chose not to listen to the police and proceed with the charges, all while he was in the mindset that there was a political conspiracy, which he admitted to and has has now recanted his view on this.

Drumgold's treatment of the police was undeniably defamatory and when combined with some of his other political interference claims, one would suspect that he wrote the letter wearing a tin foil hat.

Turns out, Drumgold was right not to listen to the police.

If Drumgold's suspicions were undoubtedly defamatory, they would have proceeded and won.

I agree the AFP thought it was best to drop it rather than risk potential exposure and tricky questions they couldn't avoid answering.

One I'd ask is "Did you have a warrant to tap Brittany Higgins phone?"

 

[campbell]

Turns out, Drumgold was right not to listen to the police.

If Drumgold's suspicions were undoubtedly defamatory, they would have proceeded and won it.

I agree the AFP thought it was best to drop it rather than risk potential exposure and tricky questions they couldn't avoid answering.

One I'd ask is "Did you have a warrant to tap Brittany Higgins phone?"

ah afp, tut tut.

 

[FIGJAM]

Turns out, Drumgold was right not to listen to the police.

I agree based on the evidence that we have today, some of which wasn’t in the hands of the police at the time.

At that time though, the coppers thought that they would struggle to get a conviction and whether you like it or not, they were right.

As always, there’s still the perennial conspiratorial undercurrent of the AFP, security guards, Reynolds, Brown, Sofronoff, Albrechtsen etc. doing stuff wrong, to deflect from Higgins telling a number of demonstrable lies in her (and Sharaz's) media blitz.

 

[Festerz]

Great little article from the Justinian on the Sofronoff- Albrechtsen affair that builds on the articles posted last week in The Guardian and other outlets...

'The depth of Janet Albrechtsen's relationship with Walter Sofronoff during his inquiry into the rape prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann was more extensive and weirder than previously understood.'

'Justinian was granted orders by ACT Chief Justice Lucy McCallum to have access to the affidavit and exhibits tendered and read during former DPP Shane Drumgold's application for judicial review of Sofronoff's Board of Inquiry fundings. '

'On March 4, 2024, Acting Justice Stephen Kaye found that Sofronoff's conduct gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.'

'The fair minded observer could have smartly understood that the findings in his report critical of Drumgold were influenced by Albrechtsen, an opinion peddler at The Australian. '

'Acting Justice Kaye also went on to find that it was legally unreasonable for Sofronoff to find that Drumgold had engaged in "grossly unethical" conduct in his cross-examination of Senator Linda Reynolds (Lib. WA) in the Lehrmann rape trial.'

And on it goes. Most 'fair minded observers' here know the story pretty well but will still find it entertaining reading. Those unable to be fair minded will get annoyed. Again. (which only adds to its value imho).

Tootsies with Planet Janet - Featurettes - Justinian: Australian legal magazine. News on lawyers and the law

Water Softener and the Planet ... Further details of the width and depth of their relationship ......

justinian.com.au

 

[Kurve]

I agree based on the evidence that we have today, some of which wasn’t in the hands of the police at the time.

What evidence did the police not have at the time?

At that time though, the coppers thought that they would struggle to get a conviction and whether you like it or not, they were right.

It wasn't for the police to get a conviction, in this case it was for the courts. The trial was abandoned due to juror misconduct so we'll never know if they were right or not. However, given it's since been found that on balance, Lehrmann did rape Higgins, it seems reasonable to assume the jurors were leaning towards a guilty verdict.

As always, there’s still the perennial conspiratorial undercurrent of the AFP, security guards, Reynolds, Brown, Sofronoff, Albrechtsen etc. doing stuff wrong, to deflect from Higgins telling a number of demonstrable lies in her (and Sharaz's) media blitz.

LMAO

 

[FIGJAM]

What evidence did the police not have at the time?

A number of text exchanges.

It wasn't for the police to get a conviction, in this case it was for the courts. The trial was abandoned due to juror misconduct so we'll never know if they were right or not. However, given it's since been found that on balance, Lehrmann did rape Higgins, it seems reasonable to assume the jurors were leaning towards a guilty verdict.

It doesn't matter what the balance of probability is after the extra information that was afforded to Lee in his decision; it was the requisite for beyond a reasonable doubt in the criminal proceeding. And Higgins' credibility was a key concernand those concerns from the police were painstakingly ripped apart to her significant detriment by Whybrow....twice!!

I sometimes feel that you think the juror or jurors who couldn't land on a guilty verdict were 'rogue arseholes'. But perhaps they simply had doubt that was above reasonable based on credibility concerns.

Would be nice if we could all have a beer with the jurors to know what happened and what their differences were, but we can't and what we do know as a statement of fact, is that the coppers were proven correct.

 

[Kurve]

I sometimes feel that you think the juror or jurors who couldn't land on a guilty verdict were 'rogue arseholes'. But perhaps they simply had doubt that was above reasonable based on credibility concerns.

Gawd there you go again. I've never gone any where near what you're suggesting re 'rogue arseholes'.

Would be nice if we could all have a beer with the jurors to know what happened and what their differences were, but we can't and what we do know as a statement of fact, is that the coppers were proven correct.

You seem to forget that Lee had criticisms for nearly everybody yet you're clinging on to some things Higgins said for which she also got some criticism.

 

[jason_recliner]

Great little article from the Justinian on the Sofronoff- Albrechtsen affair that builds on the articles posted last week in The Guardian and other outlets...

'The depth of Janet Albrechtsen's relationship with Walter Sofronoff during his inquiry into the rape prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann was more extensive and weirder than previously understood.'

'Justinian was granted orders by ACT Chief Justice Lucy McCallum to have access to the affidavit and exhibits tendered and read during former DPP Shane Drumgold's application for judicial review of Sofronoff's Board of Inquiry fundings. '

'On March 4, 2024, Acting Justice Stephen Kaye found that Sofronoff's conduct gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.'

'The fair minded observer could have smartly understood that the findings in his report critical of Drumgold were influenced by Albrechtsen, an opinion peddler at The Australian. '

'Acting Justice Kaye also went on to find that it was legally unreasonable for Sofronoff to find that Drumgold had engaged in "grossly unethical" conduct in his cross-examination of Senator Linda Reynolds (Lib. WA) in the Lehrmann rape trial.'

And on it goes. Most 'fair minded observers' here know the story pretty well but will still find it entertaining reading. Those unable to be fair minded will get annoyed. Again. (which only adds to its value imho).

Tootsies with Planet Janet - Featurettes - Justinian: Australian legal magazine. News on lawyers and the law

Water Softener and the Planet ... Further details of the width and depth of their relationship ......

justinian.com.au

It IS a funny little story. The most (only?) interesting aspect is how the author identifies the few grounds that Dumbgold had overturned but forgets to mention the many, many more that were retained. Not to mention the grounds that he had to drop! Yes, a very funny and entertaining little tale indeed!

 

[Kurve]

Great little article from the Justinian on the Sofronoff- Albrechtsen affair that builds on the articles posted last week in The Guardian and other outlets...

'The depth of Janet Albrechtsen's relationship with Walter Sofronoff during his inquiry into the rape prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann was more extensive and weirder than previously understood.'

'Justinian was granted orders by ACT Chief Justice Lucy McCallum to have access to the affidavit and exhibits tendered and read during former DPP Shane Drumgold's application for judicial review of Sofronoff's Board of Inquiry fundings. '

'On March 4, 2024, Acting Justice Stephen Kaye found that Sofronoff's conduct gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.'

'The fair minded observer could have smartly understood that the findings in his report critical of Drumgold were influenced by Albrechtsen, an opinion peddler at The Australian. '

'Acting Justice Kaye also went on to find that it was legally unreasonable for Sofronoff to find that Drumgold had engaged in "grossly unethical" conduct in his cross-examination of Senator Linda Reynolds (Lib. WA) in the Lehrmann rape trial.'

And on it goes. Most 'fair minded observers' here know the story pretty well but will still find it entertaining reading. Those unable to be fair minded will get annoyed. Again. (which only adds to its value imho).

Tootsies with Planet Janet - Featurettes - Justinian: Australian legal magazine. News on lawyers and the law

Water Softener and the Planet ... Further details of the width and depth of their relationship ......

justinian.com.au

This summing up of the situation is apt. It's far more shocking than anything Drumgold has been accused of.

Walter was on tap for Albrechtsen who was conducting a fatwa against Drumgold and his prosecution of Lehrmann for rape. This joined-at-the-hip attachment is unheard of for someone commissioned by a government to conduct an independent investigation.

 

[jason_recliner]

This summing up of the situation is apt. It's far more shocking than anything Drumgold has been accused of.

Walter was on tap for Albrechtsen who was conducting a fatwa against Drumgold and his prosecution of Lehrmann for rape. This joined-at-the-hip attachment is unheard of for someone commissioned by a government to conduct an independent investigation.

LoL! The difference is that "summing up" is just one person's opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Kurve]

LoL! The difference is that "summing up" is just one person's opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

Maybe read the entire article. Sofronoff was told by Thomas, before contact, what Albrechtsen's views were, referencing her less than rosy relationship with the DPP and of her criticisms of Drumgold.

Right there, is where Sofronoff should have said 'no thanks'.

It's interesting that Hedley Thomas is described as a friend of Sofronoff and that Thomas made the approach to Sofronoff, appearing to be of the understanding that Drumgold was to be punished.

That inquiry was infected from the start IMO.

 

[BFew]

Gawd there you go again. I've never gone any where near what you're suggesting re 'rogue arseholes'.

I hate it when posters in here get verballed by other posters

 

[GrayRanga]

LoL! The difference is that "summing up" is just one person's opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

Just as a matter of interest (with the extensive reading you have done ) , how many characters into total did Higgins use to defame Reynold

How many Column Inches did The Australian, other News Corp papers and minutes of televised media and opinion expended on this case?

Any thoughts on comparison between the two?

 

[jason_recliner]

Just as a matter of interest (with the extensive reading you have done ) , how many characters into total did Higgins use to defame Reynold

How many Column Inches did The Australian, other News Corp papers and minutes of televised media and opinion expended on this case?

Any thoughts on comparison between the two?

You're asking my thoughts on comparing the number of potentially defamatory words published by a private citizen with the number of words written about that private citizen by a multinational media organisation who's business it is to promote the views of it's owners and entertain, including by writing articles?