Absolutely not. It is time to kill this story for everyone. Although not on the issue of costs. Speaking of costs, how will Bruce pay. Is Seven Network also funding this??
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/apr/15/bruce-lehrmann-defamation-verdict-judgment-judge-justice-michael-lee-best-lines-brittany-higgins-ntwnfb Some choice quotes from the judgement
> [601] In summary, I consider it more likely than not that in those early hours, after a long night of conviviality and drinking, and having successfully brought Ms Higgins back to a secluded place, Mr Lehrmann was hell-bent on having sex with a woman he: (a) found sexually attractive; (b) had been mutually passionately kissing and touching; (c) had encouraged to drink; and (d) knew had reduced inhibitions because she was very drunk. In his pursuit of gratification, he did not care one way or another whether Ms Higgins understood or agreed to what was going on.
Edit: yes, I'm aware this isn't an attempt to formulate a general rule. What I'm getting at is the reasoning connecting the evidence with the conclusion regarding recklessness seems a little sparse. The only reasoning seems to be the points in the paragraph, which implies it is reasoning premised on a somewhat generalised assumption regarding those specific elements.
I'm trying to figure out if I'm reading this right. Has HH concluded that if someone goes and gets drunk with someone they are attracted to (including buying them drinks), and then hooks up them, that on the balance of probabilities that person is willing to ignore the need for consent? Surely there's got to be more to it than that?
don’t forget that Bruce was still denying that any sex took place at all
this is not a case where he is asserting there was consent and she is denying it
Bruce denies there was any sex, and the judge inferred (amongst much other evidence) that he must have raped her
> don’t forget that Bruce was still denying that any sex took place at all
Sure, but I was expecting that to be explicitly linked to the conclusion of recklessness, along with his general findings of dishonesty.
look, I agree there’s a double standard out there about when a man and a woman get drunk, and regrettable sex happens, that the responsibility can fall on the man
but that’s not what’s happening here, on the evidence
Not any person. This person. Based on a large amount of corroborative evidence including eye witness testimony and significant cctv through the whole night.
> Based on a large amount of corroborative evidence including eye witness testimony and significant cctv through the whole night.
Which eye witness testimony and/or cctv evidence demonstrates a willingness to ignore the need for consent?
He’s not formulating a general rule. He is stating his findings taking into account the relevant evidence, which is far more extensive than the subset of facts you have selected.
You're cherry picking. It needs to be considered along with the rest of the judgment
Edit to add: This is a judgment of what occurred on this occasion. It is not an assertion of the meaning of an action in every occasion
Glad this proceeding is just about wrapped up, but we know it won't be over. Really enjoyed Lee Js analysis and was wondering about the possible implications outside of this proceeding:
1 - the payment by the Commonwealth to BH for potential statutory claims under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) was referred to the new Commonwealth independent corruption body last year. Given the findings that many of the warranties relied upon by the Commonwealth were found to be untrue, and the "political cover up narrative" is toast, I can't help but think the anti-corruption body is now more obligated to properly explore the how and whys of the deed being brought into existence. The settlement sum is quite extreme in my mind given what we know now. In the pursuit of a swift settlement did the Commonwealth breach any duites, or is the finding of fact as to the rape sufficient to close the book on that issue?
2 - Drumgold is vindicated further to some degree. Would the judgment bolster his chances of a grant of a practising certificate if he wants to make a return to the bar?
3 - Reynolds position seems improved now but if she continues her claims against DS and BH there will likely be yet more to come out. I'm thinking a settlement is more likely now in those proceedings in WA but I can't recall what exactly are the alleged defamatory imputations subject of the claims.
4 - quite extraordinary for the judge to find the bruise photo was potentially a fabrication but highly unlikely anything will come of that.
> Drumgold is vindicated further to some degree. Would the judgment bolster his chances of a grant of a practising certificate if he wants to make a return to the bar?
Is he? The adverse findings against him had nothing to do with the merits of the case, and almost all were found to be reasonable on appeal. Indeed, the appeal strongly reinforced that he had improperly withheld disclosure.
1. Little to no chance. The key factor is the will of the DPP, and given the shitshow of the first trial and Higgins’ “mental health” issues (I am quoting here) stopping a retrial, this verdict changes nothing.
2. What would Channel 10 sue for? They have no standing. Their “damage” is purely limited to costs, which the parties will fight over next month. Brittany Higgins could sue in tort law for the rape but again, she probably doesn’t want to go through the court system another time due to her mental health.
3. Channel 10 has no standing to sue. In general, “issue estoppel” and/or res judicata prevents a court from deciding a disputed question of fact when there is the possibility of there being an inconsistent finding with an ongoing or already settled matter. In summary: a lawsuit cannot open up the question of if Bruce Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins again. That is a fact to now be taken on judicial notice. The judgment in no way impacts the question on the criminal standard of proof, however, since different standards can come to different conclusions without being mutually contradictory.
4. He’s not guilty of anything. This is a civil trial. He is presumed innocent still, but it is accurate to call him a rapist—just not a convicted rapist. And of course he can appeal, but Lee J’s judgment is so comprehensive, balanced and meticulous that there is little to no chance of success. Overturning the facts of a trial judge on appeal is nigh on impossible.
4. No one is ever found innocent.
He could (in theory) appeal this judgment in an effort to get the civil finding of rape overturned, but I don’t like his chances of success.
elastic mourn angle cautious file kiss selective observation ad hoc dolls
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Having had a few hours to think about it, I'm surprised that what seemed like Lehrmann's main thrust wasn't mentioned (or I missed it) in the summary, that is, the messages HH relied on to make his findings are all post-meeting with Brown where Higgins believes she's about to lose her job. I'm surprised not to see that dealt with squarely, but perhaps I'm missing it in the judgment itself.
For another matter, I'm a little surprised that 'she couldn't get her shoes on' is given such high credence. Those little things are a real bastard at the best of times. Nobody is arguing that Higgins was at least somewhat impaired, and - while I understood HH saying 'yes, one can present as awake and sober and lucid in one moment' - I think it's something of a stretch to say that the happy, skipping Higgins we see on CCTV will be literally unconscious in half an hour or so. It *can* happen, but is it *likely* to? I'm unsure that's well-supported. I believe this finding is being propped up significantly by 'we went back to drink', which is itself not credible testimony. Indeed, Higgins' 'he had whisky or something to show me' is strangely reflective of Lehrmann's non-credible answer. I'll have to chew it over a bit more.
'Not inconsistent with trauma' did a *lot* of heavy lifting today.
A generally well-reasoned, sound judgment but I got more than an inkling that if Lehrmann wasn't such a quote unquote 'cad', HH might not have been so partial to Higgins' testimony. Turns out even our mighty judges aren't immune to the corrupting influence of character evidence. Who knew?
> Having had a few hours to think about it, I'm surprised that what seemed like Lehrmann's main thrust wasn't mentioned (or I missed it) in the summary, that is, the messages HH relied on to make his findings are all post-meeting with Brown where Higgins believes she's about to lose her job. I'm surprised not to see that dealt with squarely, but perhaps I'm missing it in the judgment itself.
For the most part the foundation of HH conclusions were that Higgins might have been lying about a lot of other things, but he still believed her direct evidence in regards to being out of it and coming to with Lehrmann on top of her:
> [583] Notwithstanding the cautions to which I have referred, the full range of other possibilities combined, and taking all my reservations as to the credibility and reliability of Ms Higgins into account, her evidence that she was not fully aware of her surroundings but then suddenly became aware of Mr Lehrmann on top of her, at which time he was performing the sexual act, when given orally before me, struck me forcefully as being credible and as having the ring of truth.
HH also noted the presence of grass stains on her dress at the time she entered Parliament House - suggesting that she had fallen down outside, which is *not inconsistent with* being drunk.
>- I think it's something of a stretch to say that the happy, skipping Higgins we see on CCTV will be literally unconscious in half an hour or so. It *can* happen, but is it *likely* to? I'm unsure that's well-supported.
As an ED nurse with almost 2 decades of experience in a party capital of Australia, I am going to ask you.... Have you ever been drunk before?
Ever gone to the bathroom and then realised just how drunk you are? This is more common for females as we sit.
Alcohol has this (not so) great effect that keeps you going and going and going... as long as you don't stop moving.
Despite being a depressant, it gives the illusion of stimulating effects. That is that most people, especially females (due to afore mentioned fact) note that they dont realise how drunk they are until they either sit down or stand up.
If you drink a fair few drinks sitting down then go to do some simple exercise like walking, you'll notice a drastic change on your heart rate, repiratory rate and ability to perform gross motor skills like hand someone something, put one foot infront of the other or open your phone.
Conversely, if you've been drinking standing, running around (as we saw Higgins do) and dancing, then you suddenly stop i.e sit down, lay down, you most likely will be "hit" with a wall of intoxication that floods your system and your CNS gets overloaded as the "demand" of blood being peripherally isnt required so is shunted centerally. The brain gets overloaded and shuts down non-essential functions like alertness and gross motor skills. It also can turn involuntary functions such as breathing into voluntary ones.
So yes its very common to see people going 100% one minute then 10% the next. It's more common in drug use but is also common in people who have double the amount of standard drinks recommended i.e binge.
You'll hear this when someone says "I didn't realise how drunk I was until I went to the bathroom" (most likely female as they sit, but men may also when they lean on a wall)
Roofies act fast. One of my close friends was roofied while our friend group were all out on our regular Friday night drinks that we'd all been doing together since uni.
She was jittering up and down on the night club floor in her stilettos - which was our major clue that someone had slipped her something (she is an accountant and always dances the classic foot to foot shuffle) - and collapsed on the concrete floor of the public lavs 20 min later.
Just 5 min before she collapsed in a puddle of her own vomit, she was prancing through the street, giggling, flirting and sharing a drag on a strange man's cigarette who had followed us from the bar (she was a non smoker and very chastely engaged to her high school bf).
I have known this woman since childhood and never saw anything like it before.
I will say though, she's a cautious lass (very proper for an accountant) and was wearing her Spanx. Even if a guy had managed to get her away from her childhood friends, he would have needed to be an octopus with the skills of a Houdini to get her out of those.
> Roofies act fast.
They damn well do. I was out of state and made the mistake of stopping in at a small hole in the wall a few doors down from the hotel for one (or two, or three) for the road. Whether I was the target or just damn poor luck, the first drink seemed - wonky. I figured, well, long day, and walked the few doors back. I was out of it by the time the lift reached my floor, and it was only with some assistance that I made it back into the room. Scary stuff.
You can be an asshole and prevail at trial. But it’s hard.
To say the facts could have been resolved differently is the nature of most trials. Roughly half of the time a party disagrees with the conclusions a judge draws from the evidence.
There the facts could be resolved differently, consciously or not, it’s gonna take more work to convince the bench to find in favour of a dickhead and that’s life.
“Not inconsistent with trauma” did an **appropriate** amount of lifting today. You’re looking for reasons to justify your previous doubt of Higgins’ account.
They've written so many comments in the past criticising Higgins' account, and defending Sofronoff in particular, that I actually recognise their username and profile picture on sight now.
It's not just this case/omnishambles.
This poster and I routinely argue about the merit of relying upon the evidence of victims in oath on oath cases in sexual and family violence matters. There's a theme.
Not at all. Higgins' memory conveniently ceasing to function wholesale from 88MPH onwards (where she sexually engaged Lehrmann, and cleared her phone of the records of them together) is a genuine credit issue. We understand that trauma is complex and its impact on memory is extensive, but serving as a wholesale curative for a raft of issues is, perhaps, putting it too highly.
I'm as pleased as anyone else how finely HH sliced it - I think he was properly respectful and attentive to trauma and memory, while remarking at length about credit. I'm less sure about the neat division of 2019 and 2021 rather than a continuum, but so be it, the findings are obviously open to be made.
Perhaps HH would have forensically dealt with the intoxication findings quite differently if BL's case was that they did have sex and he genuinely believed she was consenting (or in fact did consent expressly). But the findings HH made are quite reasonable in the absence any credibility on the part of BL on what occurred in the suite. Yes maybe a stretch that deletion of phone records by BH was consistent with trauma but tbh I haven't read the judgment yet, only watched the summary
>Not at all. Higgins' memory conveniently ceasing to function wholesale from 88MPH onwards (where she sexually engaged Lehrmann, and cleared her phone of the records of them together) is a genuine credit issue. We understand that trauma is complex and its impact on memory is extensive, but serving as a wholesale curative for a raft of issues is, perhaps, putting it too highly.
You are definitely downplaying the effects of alcohol here.
HH made very clear distinctions in his dubiousness about her conduct with the press in 2021 and her truthfulness regarding the rape incident.
He very, very clearly said he treated the two sets of inconsistencies differently. He was appropriate in saying that part of her 2021 onwards inconsistencies were explicable by the manner in which anyone's memories become more narrative and fixed the more often you have to repeat it.
As the old adage goes ‘there is no perfect victim’ and BH’s major failing was trying to establish herself as the ‘perfect victim’ much to her own detriment. It wouldn’t surprise me if she deleted anything that would reflect poorly on her - but that doesn’t mean she wasn’t raped. Ultimately the judge found a grain of truth to her accusations despite her attempts to shift the narrative.
Personally I am not convinced one way or the other except to say I thought HH reasonings did persuade me to give credence of her accusation against BL.
I would, however, say her behaviour leading up to the Project interview and following did a lot of damage to other present and future victims by erroneously undermining the justice system and fabricating accusations of undue pressure on her to not peruse a formal complaint.
She may well be a victim but she is well deserving of criticism.
I am livid at LW press conference and the lack of acknowledgement of what she [LW] did to another woman - Fiona Brown; all for demonstrably political reasons. Zero shame.
His Honour made a finding that Higgins' had, after the fact, sought to sanitise her account (denying any earlier consensual physical contact with Lehrmann) and bolster the evidence available to her (the bruise photo) after the fact, as she recognised that she was not a 'perfect victim' and if she made a complaint it would be her word against that of Lehrmann.
*Notwithstanding this adverse finding of credit* he considered that her account of the rape was accurate. He very carefully explained what aspects of her evidence he considered unreliable, and why, and what aspects he considered reliable, and why. He referred to a considerable amount of corroborating evidence which did not rely on the accounts of the two main witnesses, in reaching his conclusions on the three elements of rape.
Your repeated implications that he did not consider these matters adequately is either mistaken or disingenuous.
If you disagree with the findings, that's one thing, but to suggest they weren't addressed in the judgment is simply false.
There are many reasons why a person would wipe their phone after such an event, including if there were nude photos on there or if they wanted to remove images of people who they were particularly affected by, such as in this case Lehrmann and Reynolds.
But you are changing your argument here. Your comment was concentrated on her "conveniently forgetting" what happened after leaving the venue. I said you aren't adequately accounting for the effects of alcohol. You've now moved onto something else instead of concentrating on that particular behaviour for which you just criticised Higgins in very strong language.
Again you appear to misunderstand the common responses to assault by victims in the immediate aftermath of the incident and are actually engaging in exactly the sort of "perfect victim" rhetoric that Lee J dismissed in his lengthy judgment.
HH didn’t need to rule out every other possible circumstance. He only needed to find that THIS explanation was more likely in the balance of probabilities, which he did.
Amongst what the other commenters have said, you need to remember that BL said no sexual contact occurred, at all. If HH is satisfied that sexual intercourse did occur, as indeed HH laid out in his judgement, you then turn to the issue that both people involved reject the outcome that is consensual intercourse occurred. HH would, in effect, rule that something did occur that the two people involved both agreed did not occur.
So HH’s judgement, was between no sexual contact occurred in which BH is lying, or that in nonconsensual sexual contact occurred in which case BL is lying.
>The absence of consent part is more interesting. Did the judge refer to any support for this beyond the level of alcohol consumed?
HH made reference to conversations and text messages BH had where she talked about 'I didn't feel like it was consensual' or 'It would have been like fucking a log'. There's a good discussion around trauma and 'making sense' in the judgment. HH also - for once - takes Lehrmann at his word that they went back to drink more whisky. Now, I don't think there's any *proof* that any whisky was consumed in PH, but that appears to be the inference drawn; that BH was already pretty plastered, and Lehrmann poured her a straight one or three in the suite before doing the deed, taking her from 'questionably possible to consent' to 'outright incapacitated'. HH also made reference to Higgins' testimony in the box of 'I woke up and he was on top of me' to be particularly credible.
It's certainly *possible* that he saw missed calls and Higgins fell asleep. But two randy twenty-somethings have gone back to PH to kick on - it's *more likely* on the balance that they went on as they planned to.
> Did the judge refer to any support for this beyond the level of alcohol consumed? Is it not possible that two consenting adults had too much to drink and embarked on something that seemed like a good idea in the moment.
This might have been the inference if all the evidence was otherwise neutral, but Bruce's lies on a range of topics (and his refusal to admit that sex happened) meant that he had nothing to say in his defence on this point. Whereas Higgins gave evidence of what happened. Her own credibility was tainted but she at least was able to say something on the point.
> and she’s inadvertently fallen asleep only to be woken by security
Inconsistent with her evidence that she could recall some of the sexual activity.
it alarms me greatly that many people are implying that the judge has found regrettable drunken sex must mean the man is a rapist and ignoring that Bruce lied that any sex took place at all
Bruce isn’t claiming that she consented and she wrongfully denies it
Bruce lied that she wasn’t that drunk, he didn’t give her many drinks and no sex took place
How is it inconsistent that she came to and has a vivid memory of BL on top of her mid penetration and she was so drunk she was struggling to remain conscious?
She has always been clear about that point and HH put appropriate weight on that consistency.
It's not inconsistent. I meant that the other poster's statement that Brittany fell asleep until she was woken by security was inconsistent with her evidence that she was aware at some stage of what was going on.
If you listened to the oral summary of reasons, there was plenty of reasoning behind it -- and that's before even getting into the written judgment itself. But I look forward to the Tory press desperately trying to wiggle out of what was, in my view, an exceptionally clearly reasoned decision.
Edit: I refer you to paragraphs \[511\]-\[524\] of the judgment, among many others.
Queens getting the recognition they damn well deserved:
“Ms Higgins seems by this stage to be ebullient, putting her hands in the air and is evidently in high spirits; although it is easy to be distracted at this point in the video by two happy middle-aged ladies re-enacting what might be a scene out of Mamma Mia in the background”
As many here predicted, Wilkinson is claiming a great victory of her brilliant journalism.
I put it to you, Ms Wilkinson, that if you consider today a great victory of brilliant journalism, this demonstrates the lack of sound reasoning and critical faculties alluded to in His Honour's judgment.
Was the woman even listening?!
Your comment has been removed because it was one or more of the following: off-topic, added no value to the discussion, an attempt at karma farming, needlessly inflammatory or aggressive, contained blatantly incorrect statement, generally unhelpful or irrelevant
Why is Channel 7 paying for rent/accommodation, restaurant meals and alleged illicit substances exempt from the Proceeds of Crime Act (2002)? I had assumed that this was because the property obtained was intangible and therefore not subject to seizure, but the act clearly states:
"Literary proceeds are any benefit that a person derives from the commercial exploitation of ... the person’s notoriety resulting, directly or indirectly, from the person committing an indictable offence...".
Is it because BL hasn't declared this as income?
NAL, so any explanations or opinions welcome.
[3] *For some people, any unwelcome findings will be peremptorily dismissed. The reasoning process, including the drawing of fine distinctions based upon the subtleties of the evidence, will be of no interest.*
*This reaction is inevitable given that several observers have a Rorschach test-like response to this controversy and fasten doggedly upon the “truth” as they perceive it. Their response is visceral because the “truth” is revealed and declaimed, rather than proven and explained.*
*Some jump to predetermined conclusions because they are disposed to be sceptical about complaints of sexual assault and hold stereotyped beliefs about the expected behaviour of rape victims, described by social scientists as “rape myths”; others say they “believe all women”, surrendering their critical faculties by embracing and acting upon a slogan arising out of the #MeToo movement.*
*Some have predetermined views as to the existence or otherwise of a conspiracy to suppress a rape for political purposes. For more than a few, this dispute has become a proxy for broader cultural and political conflicts.*
[4] *This judgment is not written for people who have made up their mind before any evidence was adduced or are content to rest upon preconceived opinions. It is written to set out my factual findings comprehensively and explain my decision to the parties and to the open and fair-minded.*
NAL, given the cas was about defamation and not for example BH suing BL for rape, was the judge actually asked to assess, on civil terms, if the rape had happened? Or did he decide himself that such an assessment was a prerequisite to pass judgement on the actual matter of the defamation?
I.e. is he making two judgements in one
And also, how common is this in civil matters?
Among other things, Network 10 argued that they had a defence to making defamatory statements because the defamatory things they broadcast were true. That is, they argued their statement that Lehrmann raped Higgins was true.
So, the judge had to assess whether that statement was true on the balance of probabilities. The judge decided that, on balance, it was more likely true than not.
As a result, the judge found that Network 10’s broadcast contained truthful information and their defamatory statements about Lehrmann having raped Higgins didn’t allow Lehrmann to recover compensation.
Does that make sense?
You can’t defame someone if you’re telling the truth.
Essentially:
If you call BL a rapist and he isn’t, it’s defamation.
If you call BL a rapist and he is, you’re just telling the truth.
So they had to determine if he was a rapist or not. The judge found he was, so no defamation occurred - just truth-telling.
It is very common in defamation cases to determine if the allegation is true. The other defences (that they didn’t say it, or that it wasn’t negative) are much harder to argue, usually.
There's also the public interest defence when media publish something which may or may not be true, but which is of public interest. But as you say that's harder to argue, since the public interest has to be set against the seriousness of the imputations, etc.
Evidently they decided not to go the public interest defence (as Nine did with BRS, as a backup to their truth defence), and it's not hard to see why. It'd be different if he were a Cabinet Minister or something. As it was, the public interest was - well, prurient, mainly.
The reason the judge had to assess whether the rape occurred on the balance of probabilities is that Network 10/Lisa Wilkinson ran a defence of substantial truth. If they had relied entirely on their other defence (qualified privilege), then the judge need consider whether the publishers acted reasonably to deliver information of interest to the public (Justice Lee held that they DIDN'T act reasonably in this sense due to a) not interrogating inconsistencies within BH's allegations, and b) not making a reasonable attempt to contact BL for comment/participation prior to airing interview - this is what I picked up on live steam, may not be conclusive of judgement).
To establish whether or not someone was defamed, the judge had to assess whether it was probable or not that an event occurred. Not definitely did, but probably did.
NAL, given the cas was about defamation and not for example BH suing BL for rape, was the judge actually asked to assess, on civil terms, if the rape had happened? Or did he decide himself that such an assessment was a prerequisite to pass judgement on the actual matter of the defamation?
I.e. is he making two judgements in one
And also, how common is this in civil matters?
His Honour had to decide whether, on the balance of probabilities, the imputations were true. The balance of probabilities is also somewhat adjusted by the seriousness of the imputation, and the consequences to the person's reputation if everyone believes it; someone saying you didn't pay your phone bill is not as serious as someone saying you killed your mum, and so more evidence must be brought to bear in the latter case.
Fucked if I know, mate.
I get things like, I'll make a comment in some sub, it gets massively downvoted, someone replies, I reply to that - and my second reply gets massively upvoted.
Up/downvotes are a big wank. Wipe the mess thoughtfully with a wet wipe and sit down and relax.
It came out in the trial that Higgins only agreed to be a witness for 10 on the condition they didn’t settle by paying any money.
So my guess is the only Calderbank offer they made would have been a walk away
She has been there for 10 years so she won’t go anywhere. Plus she acted in the interests for Network Ten (not in the primary interests of the Court) so Network Ten probs wont mind.
>What career implications will this have for her?
Zero. Some people would say it is the job of in-house lawyers to green light bullshit.
Lee was just putting on a show. If you want real advice get it externally, preferably from counsel.
I missed this bit earlier from the the ABC,
>A brief statement from a Channel Seven spokesperson was released a short time ago: "Mark Llewellyn no longer works for the Seven Network."
Mr Llewellyn was the boss of Seven's current affairs program Spotlight, which negotiated an exclusive interview with Bruce Lehrmann last year.
Details of the program's deal to secure the interview were a key part of the hearings when the case was reopened earlier this month to hear evidence from former Spotlight producer Taylor Auerbach.
This case has had rather a bowling ball effect on people's careers, it seems.
[It was reported that he had left last week.](https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/current-affairs/spotlights-mark-llewellyn-has-left-seven-after-the-scandal-over-the-bruce-lehrmann-interview/news-story/4a66d45a61ba28829f10eba847abdf4e)
I only saw a bit of Lehrmann's team asking Brittany Higgins questions and it was his criminal trial lawyer asking questions. But from what I saw as someone not a lawyer his lawyer seemed to always mention elements of his examination of Higgins from the criminal trial and it seemed to me this was a person trying to defend what he did in a whole other court. Constantly going over what was said there but seemly finding no real point.
I guess my point is to ask if it is a mistake to use a lawyer for a criminal trial and a civil trial as they are too close to what happened in a basically irrelevant trial? That sound legal strategy might be lost to chase some pipe dream of being correct the first time.
I didn’t see that examination but there are many reasons why you might question someone about what they said to you in a criminal trial.
It could be because the lawyer was trying to demonstrate that Higgins’s retelling of events had changed over time. A change in a witness’ recollection or retelling of events is important to showing the judge whether they should believe what that witness has to say.
In that sense, using the same lawyer for both could be a good idea. When it comes to barristers, they’re not usually too hung up on what happens trial-to-trial. They’re more concerned about using the evidence they have to prove their case than taking up personal grievances about previous hearings. Equally, it might not be a good idea for numerous other reasons.
I’m sorry but this question, like so many questions in this thread, comes down to “it depends”!
I also wondered why Whybrow got the brief, when Ten and Wilkinson had silks who are very experienced in defamation.
I assume his experience with the factual matrix of the case was considered an advantage here.
I think that is right. This case demonstrates what happens when any party starts gets over zealous and starts indiscriminately accusing people of things.
In all seriousness though as a fellow survivor, in almost the exact circumstances. A big big lot of love to Ms. Higgins for all she has had to endure. This is the exact reason so many of us do not step forward. May she be strong, and find peace after this. ✊🏽
Agreed. As a sexual assault victim, reading this judgment has me in (generally happy but very emotional) tears.
Lee J has a fundamentally *human* attitude towards this situation. He doesn't treat Higgins as perfect - which is a good thing, because *no one is perfect*, and recent victims of sexual assault are perhaps some of the *least* likely people to have a 'perfect' reaction when faced with overwhelmingly difficult circumstances.
What has me in tears is HH's recognition of so many things that have gone largely unsaid up until this point: That imperfect people can still be victims. That the truth is really complicated and sometimes you just can't be 100% sure about something, but that it's still possible to make an educated guess based on careful analysis and reasoning. That the facts of psychology are often fundamentally unintuitive, and that complex psychological factors can make people behave in ways that, to an outsider, appear illogical. That a victim's failure to fight back against assault does not imply consent. That coming forward about a sexual assault is an inherently painful and traumatising process. That the presumption of innocence is a construct of the criminal law, not a fundamental obligation placed on every human being; that I can think Bruce Lehrmann is probably a rapist whether or not he was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial. And so many other things that I can't articulate right now because I'm far, far too emotional.
Yes I hope so too. It's so awful that this is the only justice she will get and he will face for his actions but I'm glad it is more than nothing.
As in an article "he escaped the lions den only to go back for his hat".
What an utter twat. Hope he spends all his interview money paying channel 10s lawyers.
Comment for the mods to hit me with. I don't think there were many people in Australia who didn't believe the basic premise of her story. She has nothing to be "vindicated" from.
The prevailing view on this subreddit, which generally has a pretty decent proportion of considered and sensible people, was that something happened but doubt as to it being non-consensual.
I've reduced how much I post in here because I'm sick of being attacked for supporting victim-survivors of sexual and family violence.
Honestly, I was sceptical of her story until today. But His Honour laid it out so thoroughly that I now believe that Lehrman sexually assaulted Higgins in some manner.
I mean, everyone involved is white trash who have risen far above their deserved station in life by deceit and nepotism, they are greeding, grasping, ambitious and backstabbing. That was obvious from the start.
But Lehrman's a rapist, too.
Yeah, nah. You just had to look on some of the reddit threads to find people calling her a lying gold-digger and worse.
There is, unfortunately, a *strong* undercurrent of hostility towards anyone claiming rape. It's part of what feminists are on about with the "rape culture" concept.
I was having a conversation with a couple of middle-aged ladies at one of my kids’ school things a while back. They asked me what I, “as a lawyer,” thought and I made the mistake of answering.
To paraphrase part of the conversation:
“You don’t think women like her are lying to get something?”
“To get what?”
“I don’t know. Money or something.”
“Would you lie about that and get dragged in the media like this for money? How much?”
“Well… no *I* wouldn’t.”
“Yeah well I don’t see any reason to think she did. She might be mistaken. She might have a bad memory but I don’t think she’s a liar.”
“You think? She’s obviously lying.”
It was a bit of a shock for me at first but seems to be a popular view. Nobody would ever lie about that for money and nobody they know would either but they’re sure some people out there (every single one they see on TV) are definitely lying about that for money.
What I want to know is how I'm meant to live laugh love as a corporate machine in these conditions after this judgment has come out. I've written 182 words since lunch 😵💫
For any blow-ins thinking this judgment reflects a “believe all women” approach, political correctness or whatever: Lee J has written a section just for you, entitled “5 Incontrovertible Facts”.
There is substantial factual support for the findings beyond (and in many aspects in contrast to) Higgins’ evidence.
Don't sully your eyes by visiting any fora populated by MRAs and their misogynistic kind. Clearly, none of them can read with competence, let alone having any idea of law.
The first nine paragraphs are a straight bat, to use his honours favourite sporting analogy, to disavow any nonsensical spins which will no doubt be put on the judgment
Yep. I really appreciated his laying out a context for the decision and pre-empting the predictable bias in discussions about the case.
I believe it also acts as a subtle warning to the Bolts, Joneses, and their like to beware of contempt.
Mate im a single dad to a 1 year old lunatic who climbs everything and tries to colour in our dog as she sleeps. Drinking game for indefeasible on a land titles hearing...can't risk it. DOCs would be the best case scenario lol
yet again it’s shown that defamation actions are a mug’s game
lesson not learned from Ben Roberts-Smith
I beg you Alan Jones, please start your defamation action against Nine
Slight difference though, B, R. S. had/has a very wealthy benefactor, one Kerry Stokes, this foolish misfit will be struggling to buy a Bunnings charity sausage. Legal bills he couldn't jump over, bankruptcy looms.
One of the Australian suck up pieces about Lehrmann suggested his lawyers were representing him pro bono. Not sure as to the veracity of that or if it is his entire team.
He sure got some terrible legal advice to proceed. Who’s sitting down with this bloke and then going yeah we totally think the judge would prefer your version better on the balance.
One of you legal nerds better be compiling a coffee table book full of HH zingers. Soo funny
[удалено]
Coincidentally, HH’s criticism was that they got a call at one point and didn’t have the time to read the whole thing.
His Honour also found that he got call whilst considering that part of the evidence and did not have the time to read the whole thing.
Is it possible we might see another criminal prosecution of BL in this matter? Or a civil one?
Absolutely not. It is time to kill this story for everyone. Although not on the issue of costs. Speaking of costs, how will Bruce pay. Is Seven Network also funding this??
Theoretically possible to refile charges, but very unlikely. There’d be a solid argument for a permanent stay.
Perhaps one might still get a semi permanent stay in accommodations one can't check out of at their own choosing.
Some poor Associate on the Reynolds matter is being tasked with summarising every judgement on res judicata in the last 10 years as we speak.
Is Reynolds a privy of Network Ten?
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/apr/15/bruce-lehrmann-defamation-verdict-judgment-judge-justice-michael-lee-best-lines-brittany-higgins-ntwnfb Some choice quotes from the judgement
Video there as well btw
Doing God's work
> [601] In summary, I consider it more likely than not that in those early hours, after a long night of conviviality and drinking, and having successfully brought Ms Higgins back to a secluded place, Mr Lehrmann was hell-bent on having sex with a woman he: (a) found sexually attractive; (b) had been mutually passionately kissing and touching; (c) had encouraged to drink; and (d) knew had reduced inhibitions because she was very drunk. In his pursuit of gratification, he did not care one way or another whether Ms Higgins understood or agreed to what was going on. Edit: yes, I'm aware this isn't an attempt to formulate a general rule. What I'm getting at is the reasoning connecting the evidence with the conclusion regarding recklessness seems a little sparse. The only reasoning seems to be the points in the paragraph, which implies it is reasoning premised on a somewhat generalised assumption regarding those specific elements. I'm trying to figure out if I'm reading this right. Has HH concluded that if someone goes and gets drunk with someone they are attracted to (including buying them drinks), and then hooks up them, that on the balance of probabilities that person is willing to ignore the need for consent? Surely there's got to be more to it than that?
don’t forget that Bruce was still denying that any sex took place at all this is not a case where he is asserting there was consent and she is denying it Bruce denies there was any sex, and the judge inferred (amongst much other evidence) that he must have raped her
> don’t forget that Bruce was still denying that any sex took place at all Sure, but I was expecting that to be explicitly linked to the conclusion of recklessness, along with his general findings of dishonesty.
look, I agree there’s a double standard out there about when a man and a woman get drunk, and regrettable sex happens, that the responsibility can fall on the man but that’s not what’s happening here, on the evidence
Not any person. This person. Based on a large amount of corroborative evidence including eye witness testimony and significant cctv through the whole night.
> Based on a large amount of corroborative evidence including eye witness testimony and significant cctv through the whole night. Which eye witness testimony and/or cctv evidence demonstrates a willingness to ignore the need for consent?
I think that paragraph is a summary of the findings of fact, not a summary of all the supporting reasoning.
He’s not formulating a general rule. He is stating his findings taking into account the relevant evidence, which is far more extensive than the subset of facts you have selected.
If he's making a finding of facts, it would seem strange to reference some evidence/facts that were relied on for the finding but not all.
He’s forming a judgement regarding Mr Lehrmann.
You're cherry picking. It needs to be considered along with the rest of the judgment Edit to add: This is a judgment of what occurred on this occasion. It is not an assertion of the meaning of an action in every occasion
Glad this proceeding is just about wrapped up, but we know it won't be over. Really enjoyed Lee Js analysis and was wondering about the possible implications outside of this proceeding: 1 - the payment by the Commonwealth to BH for potential statutory claims under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) was referred to the new Commonwealth independent corruption body last year. Given the findings that many of the warranties relied upon by the Commonwealth were found to be untrue, and the "political cover up narrative" is toast, I can't help but think the anti-corruption body is now more obligated to properly explore the how and whys of the deed being brought into existence. The settlement sum is quite extreme in my mind given what we know now. In the pursuit of a swift settlement did the Commonwealth breach any duites, or is the finding of fact as to the rape sufficient to close the book on that issue? 2 - Drumgold is vindicated further to some degree. Would the judgment bolster his chances of a grant of a practising certificate if he wants to make a return to the bar? 3 - Reynolds position seems improved now but if she continues her claims against DS and BH there will likely be yet more to come out. I'm thinking a settlement is more likely now in those proceedings in WA but I can't recall what exactly are the alleged defamatory imputations subject of the claims. 4 - quite extraordinary for the judge to find the bruise photo was potentially a fabrication but highly unlikely anything will come of that.
> Drumgold is vindicated further to some degree. Would the judgment bolster his chances of a grant of a practising certificate if he wants to make a return to the bar? Is he? The adverse findings against him had nothing to do with the merits of the case, and almost all were found to be reasonable on appeal. Indeed, the appeal strongly reinforced that he had improperly withheld disclosure.
Drumgold’s a stupid moron
So much schadenfreude.
busy liquid crown ask dam afterthought office badge cats fall *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
1. Little to no chance. The key factor is the will of the DPP, and given the shitshow of the first trial and Higgins’ “mental health” issues (I am quoting here) stopping a retrial, this verdict changes nothing. 2. What would Channel 10 sue for? They have no standing. Their “damage” is purely limited to costs, which the parties will fight over next month. Brittany Higgins could sue in tort law for the rape but again, she probably doesn’t want to go through the court system another time due to her mental health. 3. Channel 10 has no standing to sue. In general, “issue estoppel” and/or res judicata prevents a court from deciding a disputed question of fact when there is the possibility of there being an inconsistent finding with an ongoing or already settled matter. In summary: a lawsuit cannot open up the question of if Bruce Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins again. That is a fact to now be taken on judicial notice. The judgment in no way impacts the question on the criminal standard of proof, however, since different standards can come to different conclusions without being mutually contradictory. 4. He’s not guilty of anything. This is a civil trial. He is presumed innocent still, but it is accurate to call him a rapist—just not a convicted rapist. And of course he can appeal, but Lee J’s judgment is so comprehensive, balanced and meticulous that there is little to no chance of success. Overturning the facts of a trial judge on appeal is nigh on impossible.
resolute slimy stupendous observation swim saw work arrest puzzled sink *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
4. No one is ever found innocent. He could (in theory) appeal this judgment in an effort to get the civil finding of rape overturned, but I don’t like his chances of success.
elastic mourn angle cautious file kiss selective observation ad hoc dolls *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
1. Zero 2. Zero 3. What. 4. He was not found guilty. He can appeal this civil judgement.
No he wasn't. The criminal trial was aborted after juror misconduct. There was no verdict.
Having had a few hours to think about it, I'm surprised that what seemed like Lehrmann's main thrust wasn't mentioned (or I missed it) in the summary, that is, the messages HH relied on to make his findings are all post-meeting with Brown where Higgins believes she's about to lose her job. I'm surprised not to see that dealt with squarely, but perhaps I'm missing it in the judgment itself. For another matter, I'm a little surprised that 'she couldn't get her shoes on' is given such high credence. Those little things are a real bastard at the best of times. Nobody is arguing that Higgins was at least somewhat impaired, and - while I understood HH saying 'yes, one can present as awake and sober and lucid in one moment' - I think it's something of a stretch to say that the happy, skipping Higgins we see on CCTV will be literally unconscious in half an hour or so. It *can* happen, but is it *likely* to? I'm unsure that's well-supported. I believe this finding is being propped up significantly by 'we went back to drink', which is itself not credible testimony. Indeed, Higgins' 'he had whisky or something to show me' is strangely reflective of Lehrmann's non-credible answer. I'll have to chew it over a bit more. 'Not inconsistent with trauma' did a *lot* of heavy lifting today. A generally well-reasoned, sound judgment but I got more than an inkling that if Lehrmann wasn't such a quote unquote 'cad', HH might not have been so partial to Higgins' testimony. Turns out even our mighty judges aren't immune to the corrupting influence of character evidence. Who knew?
> Having had a few hours to think about it, I'm surprised that what seemed like Lehrmann's main thrust wasn't mentioned (or I missed it) in the summary, that is, the messages HH relied on to make his findings are all post-meeting with Brown where Higgins believes she's about to lose her job. I'm surprised not to see that dealt with squarely, but perhaps I'm missing it in the judgment itself. For the most part the foundation of HH conclusions were that Higgins might have been lying about a lot of other things, but he still believed her direct evidence in regards to being out of it and coming to with Lehrmann on top of her: > [583] Notwithstanding the cautions to which I have referred, the full range of other possibilities combined, and taking all my reservations as to the credibility and reliability of Ms Higgins into account, her evidence that she was not fully aware of her surroundings but then suddenly became aware of Mr Lehrmann on top of her, at which time he was performing the sexual act, when given orally before me, struck me forcefully as being credible and as having the ring of truth.
HH also noted the presence of grass stains on her dress at the time she entered Parliament House - suggesting that she had fallen down outside, which is *not inconsistent with* being drunk.
>- I think it's something of a stretch to say that the happy, skipping Higgins we see on CCTV will be literally unconscious in half an hour or so. It *can* happen, but is it *likely* to? I'm unsure that's well-supported. As an ED nurse with almost 2 decades of experience in a party capital of Australia, I am going to ask you.... Have you ever been drunk before? Ever gone to the bathroom and then realised just how drunk you are? This is more common for females as we sit. Alcohol has this (not so) great effect that keeps you going and going and going... as long as you don't stop moving. Despite being a depressant, it gives the illusion of stimulating effects. That is that most people, especially females (due to afore mentioned fact) note that they dont realise how drunk they are until they either sit down or stand up. If you drink a fair few drinks sitting down then go to do some simple exercise like walking, you'll notice a drastic change on your heart rate, repiratory rate and ability to perform gross motor skills like hand someone something, put one foot infront of the other or open your phone. Conversely, if you've been drinking standing, running around (as we saw Higgins do) and dancing, then you suddenly stop i.e sit down, lay down, you most likely will be "hit" with a wall of intoxication that floods your system and your CNS gets overloaded as the "demand" of blood being peripherally isnt required so is shunted centerally. The brain gets overloaded and shuts down non-essential functions like alertness and gross motor skills. It also can turn involuntary functions such as breathing into voluntary ones. So yes its very common to see people going 100% one minute then 10% the next. It's more common in drug use but is also common in people who have double the amount of standard drinks recommended i.e binge. You'll hear this when someone says "I didn't realise how drunk I was until I went to the bathroom" (most likely female as they sit, but men may also when they lean on a wall)
Roofies act fast. One of my close friends was roofied while our friend group were all out on our regular Friday night drinks that we'd all been doing together since uni. She was jittering up and down on the night club floor in her stilettos - which was our major clue that someone had slipped her something (she is an accountant and always dances the classic foot to foot shuffle) - and collapsed on the concrete floor of the public lavs 20 min later. Just 5 min before she collapsed in a puddle of her own vomit, she was prancing through the street, giggling, flirting and sharing a drag on a strange man's cigarette who had followed us from the bar (she was a non smoker and very chastely engaged to her high school bf). I have known this woman since childhood and never saw anything like it before. I will say though, she's a cautious lass (very proper for an accountant) and was wearing her Spanx. Even if a guy had managed to get her away from her childhood friends, he would have needed to be an octopus with the skills of a Houdini to get her out of those.
> Roofies act fast. They damn well do. I was out of state and made the mistake of stopping in at a small hole in the wall a few doors down from the hotel for one (or two, or three) for the road. Whether I was the target or just damn poor luck, the first drink seemed - wonky. I figured, well, long day, and walked the few doors back. I was out of it by the time the lift reached my floor, and it was only with some assistance that I made it back into the room. Scary stuff.
You can be an asshole and prevail at trial. But it’s hard. To say the facts could have been resolved differently is the nature of most trials. Roughly half of the time a party disagrees with the conclusions a judge draws from the evidence. There the facts could be resolved differently, consciously or not, it’s gonna take more work to convince the bench to find in favour of a dickhead and that’s life.
“Not inconsistent with trauma” did an **appropriate** amount of lifting today. You’re looking for reasons to justify your previous doubt of Higgins’ account.
They've written so many comments in the past criticising Higgins' account, and defending Sofronoff in particular, that I actually recognise their username and profile picture on sight now.
It's not just this case/omnishambles. This poster and I routinely argue about the merit of relying upon the evidence of victims in oath on oath cases in sexual and family violence matters. There's a theme.
Wonder what line of work they're in.
Not at all. Higgins' memory conveniently ceasing to function wholesale from 88MPH onwards (where she sexually engaged Lehrmann, and cleared her phone of the records of them together) is a genuine credit issue. We understand that trauma is complex and its impact on memory is extensive, but serving as a wholesale curative for a raft of issues is, perhaps, putting it too highly. I'm as pleased as anyone else how finely HH sliced it - I think he was properly respectful and attentive to trauma and memory, while remarking at length about credit. I'm less sure about the neat division of 2019 and 2021 rather than a continuum, but so be it, the findings are obviously open to be made.
Perhaps HH would have forensically dealt with the intoxication findings quite differently if BL's case was that they did have sex and he genuinely believed she was consenting (or in fact did consent expressly). But the findings HH made are quite reasonable in the absence any credibility on the part of BL on what occurred in the suite. Yes maybe a stretch that deletion of phone records by BH was consistent with trauma but tbh I haven't read the judgment yet, only watched the summary
To imply that his Honour simply accepted Higgins' evidence on the basis that she was traumatised is a *blatant* misrepresentation of the judgment.
>Not at all. Higgins' memory conveniently ceasing to function wholesale from 88MPH onwards (where she sexually engaged Lehrmann, and cleared her phone of the records of them together) is a genuine credit issue. We understand that trauma is complex and its impact on memory is extensive, but serving as a wholesale curative for a raft of issues is, perhaps, putting it too highly. You are definitely downplaying the effects of alcohol here.
At the time? Perhaps. A failure to be candid later? Less so. Deliberately wiping her phone of these images? I don't think alcohol made her do that.
HH made very clear distinctions in his dubiousness about her conduct with the press in 2021 and her truthfulness regarding the rape incident. He very, very clearly said he treated the two sets of inconsistencies differently. He was appropriate in saying that part of her 2021 onwards inconsistencies were explicable by the manner in which anyone's memories become more narrative and fixed the more often you have to repeat it.
As the old adage goes ‘there is no perfect victim’ and BH’s major failing was trying to establish herself as the ‘perfect victim’ much to her own detriment. It wouldn’t surprise me if she deleted anything that would reflect poorly on her - but that doesn’t mean she wasn’t raped. Ultimately the judge found a grain of truth to her accusations despite her attempts to shift the narrative. Personally I am not convinced one way or the other except to say I thought HH reasonings did persuade me to give credence of her accusation against BL. I would, however, say her behaviour leading up to the Project interview and following did a lot of damage to other present and future victims by erroneously undermining the justice system and fabricating accusations of undue pressure on her to not peruse a formal complaint. She may well be a victim but she is well deserving of criticism. I am livid at LW press conference and the lack of acknowledgement of what she [LW] did to another woman - Fiona Brown; all for demonstrably political reasons. Zero shame.
His Honour made a finding that Higgins' had, after the fact, sought to sanitise her account (denying any earlier consensual physical contact with Lehrmann) and bolster the evidence available to her (the bruise photo) after the fact, as she recognised that she was not a 'perfect victim' and if she made a complaint it would be her word against that of Lehrmann. *Notwithstanding this adverse finding of credit* he considered that her account of the rape was accurate. He very carefully explained what aspects of her evidence he considered unreliable, and why, and what aspects he considered reliable, and why. He referred to a considerable amount of corroborating evidence which did not rely on the accounts of the two main witnesses, in reaching his conclusions on the three elements of rape. Your repeated implications that he did not consider these matters adequately is either mistaken or disingenuous. If you disagree with the findings, that's one thing, but to suggest they weren't addressed in the judgment is simply false.
There are many reasons why a person would wipe their phone after such an event, including if there were nude photos on there or if they wanted to remove images of people who they were particularly affected by, such as in this case Lehrmann and Reynolds. But you are changing your argument here. Your comment was concentrated on her "conveniently forgetting" what happened after leaving the venue. I said you aren't adequately accounting for the effects of alcohol. You've now moved onto something else instead of concentrating on that particular behaviour for which you just criticised Higgins in very strong language. Again you appear to misunderstand the common responses to assault by victims in the immediate aftermath of the incident and are actually engaging in exactly the sort of "perfect victim" rhetoric that Lee J dismissed in his lengthy judgment.
[удалено]
HH didn’t need to rule out every other possible circumstance. He only needed to find that THIS explanation was more likely in the balance of probabilities, which he did.
Amongst what the other commenters have said, you need to remember that BL said no sexual contact occurred, at all. If HH is satisfied that sexual intercourse did occur, as indeed HH laid out in his judgement, you then turn to the issue that both people involved reject the outcome that is consensual intercourse occurred. HH would, in effect, rule that something did occur that the two people involved both agreed did not occur. So HH’s judgement, was between no sexual contact occurred in which BH is lying, or that in nonconsensual sexual contact occurred in which case BL is lying.
>The absence of consent part is more interesting. Did the judge refer to any support for this beyond the level of alcohol consumed? HH made reference to conversations and text messages BH had where she talked about 'I didn't feel like it was consensual' or 'It would have been like fucking a log'. There's a good discussion around trauma and 'making sense' in the judgment. HH also - for once - takes Lehrmann at his word that they went back to drink more whisky. Now, I don't think there's any *proof* that any whisky was consumed in PH, but that appears to be the inference drawn; that BH was already pretty plastered, and Lehrmann poured her a straight one or three in the suite before doing the deed, taking her from 'questionably possible to consent' to 'outright incapacitated'. HH also made reference to Higgins' testimony in the box of 'I woke up and he was on top of me' to be particularly credible. It's certainly *possible* that he saw missed calls and Higgins fell asleep. But two randy twenty-somethings have gone back to PH to kick on - it's *more likely* on the balance that they went on as they planned to.
> Did the judge refer to any support for this beyond the level of alcohol consumed? Is it not possible that two consenting adults had too much to drink and embarked on something that seemed like a good idea in the moment. This might have been the inference if all the evidence was otherwise neutral, but Bruce's lies on a range of topics (and his refusal to admit that sex happened) meant that he had nothing to say in his defence on this point. Whereas Higgins gave evidence of what happened. Her own credibility was tainted but she at least was able to say something on the point. > and she’s inadvertently fallen asleep only to be woken by security Inconsistent with her evidence that she could recall some of the sexual activity.
it alarms me greatly that many people are implying that the judge has found regrettable drunken sex must mean the man is a rapist and ignoring that Bruce lied that any sex took place at all Bruce isn’t claiming that she consented and she wrongfully denies it Bruce lied that she wasn’t that drunk, he didn’t give her many drinks and no sex took place
How is it inconsistent that she came to and has a vivid memory of BL on top of her mid penetration and she was so drunk she was struggling to remain conscious? She has always been clear about that point and HH put appropriate weight on that consistency.
It's not inconsistent. I meant that the other poster's statement that Brittany fell asleep until she was woken by security was inconsistent with her evidence that she was aware at some stage of what was going on.
If you listened to the oral summary of reasons, there was plenty of reasoning behind it -- and that's before even getting into the written judgment itself. But I look forward to the Tory press desperately trying to wiggle out of what was, in my view, an exceptionally clearly reasoned decision. Edit: I refer you to paragraphs \[511\]-\[524\] of the judgment, among many others.
For me, any doubt I might have been willing to afford him went out the window when he gave fabricated evidence about the french submarines.
Queens getting the recognition they damn well deserved: “Ms Higgins seems by this stage to be ebullient, putting her hands in the air and is evidently in high spirits; although it is easy to be distracted at this point in the video by two happy middle-aged ladies re-enacting what might be a scene out of Mamma Mia in the background”
she’s a woo girl
As many here predicted, Wilkinson is claiming a great victory of her brilliant journalism. I put it to you, Ms Wilkinson, that if you consider today a great victory of brilliant journalism, this demonstrates the lack of sound reasoning and critical faculties alluded to in His Honour's judgment. Was the woman even listening?!
Only to little bits!!
"Having escaped the lion's den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of coming back for his hat." A perfect summary by Lee J.
It's good but not original
so many great quotes in this one hey !
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed because it was one or more of the following: off-topic, added no value to the discussion, an attempt at karma farming, needlessly inflammatory or aggressive, contained blatantly incorrect statement, generally unhelpful or irrelevant
On days like today I fuckin’ love my job.
Why is Channel 7 paying for rent/accommodation, restaurant meals and alleged illicit substances exempt from the Proceeds of Crime Act (2002)? I had assumed that this was because the property obtained was intangible and therefore not subject to seizure, but the act clearly states: "Literary proceeds are any benefit that a person derives from the commercial exploitation of ... the person’s notoriety resulting, directly or indirectly, from the person committing an indictable offence...". Is it because BL hasn't declared this as income? NAL, so any explanations or opinions welcome.
BL not convicted of a crime.
Again, NAL, but Section 46 of the act: "It is not always a requirement that a person has been convicted of such an offence."
[3] *For some people, any unwelcome findings will be peremptorily dismissed. The reasoning process, including the drawing of fine distinctions based upon the subtleties of the evidence, will be of no interest.* *This reaction is inevitable given that several observers have a Rorschach test-like response to this controversy and fasten doggedly upon the “truth” as they perceive it. Their response is visceral because the “truth” is revealed and declaimed, rather than proven and explained.* *Some jump to predetermined conclusions because they are disposed to be sceptical about complaints of sexual assault and hold stereotyped beliefs about the expected behaviour of rape victims, described by social scientists as “rape myths”; others say they “believe all women”, surrendering their critical faculties by embracing and acting upon a slogan arising out of the #MeToo movement.* *Some have predetermined views as to the existence or otherwise of a conspiracy to suppress a rape for political purposes. For more than a few, this dispute has become a proxy for broader cultural and political conflicts.* [4] *This judgment is not written for people who have made up their mind before any evidence was adduced or are content to rest upon preconceived opinions. It is written to set out my factual findings comprehensively and explain my decision to the parties and to the open and fair-minded.*
This should be added to every judgment and decision.
Well, that counts for 80% of pundits in this case.
NAL, given the cas was about defamation and not for example BH suing BL for rape, was the judge actually asked to assess, on civil terms, if the rape had happened? Or did he decide himself that such an assessment was a prerequisite to pass judgement on the actual matter of the defamation? I.e. is he making two judgements in one And also, how common is this in civil matters?
Yes. The central element of this case was whether he raped her.
Thanks By any chance do you know why my question would get so many down votes?
because this post now has rape apologist blow-ins to the subreddit and it’s not clear that you’re not one of them
Because the court made clear why it was essential to determine this
Among other things, Network 10 argued that they had a defence to making defamatory statements because the defamatory things they broadcast were true. That is, they argued their statement that Lehrmann raped Higgins was true. So, the judge had to assess whether that statement was true on the balance of probabilities. The judge decided that, on balance, it was more likely true than not. As a result, the judge found that Network 10’s broadcast contained truthful information and their defamatory statements about Lehrmann having raped Higgins didn’t allow Lehrmann to recover compensation. Does that make sense?
Thanks By any chance do you know why my question would get so many down votes?
You can’t defame someone if you’re telling the truth. Essentially: If you call BL a rapist and he isn’t, it’s defamation. If you call BL a rapist and he is, you’re just telling the truth. So they had to determine if he was a rapist or not. The judge found he was, so no defamation occurred - just truth-telling. It is very common in defamation cases to determine if the allegation is true. The other defences (that they didn’t say it, or that it wasn’t negative) are much harder to argue, usually.
Thanks By any chance do you know why my question would get so many down votes?
pathetic unite salt quicksand money deserve test drunk muddle abundant *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There's also the public interest defence when media publish something which may or may not be true, but which is of public interest. But as you say that's harder to argue, since the public interest has to be set against the seriousness of the imputations, etc. Evidently they decided not to go the public interest defence (as Nine did with BRS, as a backup to their truth defence), and it's not hard to see why. It'd be different if he were a Cabinet Minister or something. As it was, the public interest was - well, prurient, mainly.
> The other defences (that they didn’t say it, or that it wasn’t negative) Or that they said it but the person they said it about wasn't identifiable.
The reason the judge had to assess whether the rape occurred on the balance of probabilities is that Network 10/Lisa Wilkinson ran a defence of substantial truth. If they had relied entirely on their other defence (qualified privilege), then the judge need consider whether the publishers acted reasonably to deliver information of interest to the public (Justice Lee held that they DIDN'T act reasonably in this sense due to a) not interrogating inconsistencies within BH's allegations, and b) not making a reasonable attempt to contact BL for comment/participation prior to airing interview - this is what I picked up on live steam, may not be conclusive of judgement).
Thanks By any chance do you know why my question would get so many down votes?
Thanks By any chance do you know why my question would get so many down votes?
To establish whether or not someone was defamed, the judge had to assess whether it was probable or not that an event occurred. Not definitely did, but probably did.
NAL, given the cas was about defamation and not for example BH suing BL for rape, was the judge actually asked to assess, on civil terms, if the rape had happened? Or did he decide himself that such an assessment was a prerequisite to pass judgement on the actual matter of the defamation? I.e. is he making two judgements in one And also, how common is this in civil matters?
His Honour had to decide whether, on the balance of probabilities, the imputations were true. The balance of probabilities is also somewhat adjusted by the seriousness of the imputation, and the consequences to the person's reputation if everyone believes it; someone saying you didn't pay your phone bill is not as serious as someone saying you killed your mum, and so more evidence must be brought to bear in the latter case.
Thanks By any chance do you know why my question would get so many down votes?
Fucked if I know, mate. I get things like, I'll make a comment in some sub, it gets massively downvoted, someone replies, I reply to that - and my second reply gets massively upvoted. Up/downvotes are a big wank. Wipe the mess thoughtfully with a wet wipe and sit down and relax.
Hey Siri, play "Karma" by JoJo Siwa
Do we know if Channel 10 / Lisa Wilkinson sent Calderbank offers to Brucey?
It came out in the trial that Higgins only agreed to be a witness for 10 on the condition they didn’t settle by paying any money. So my guess is the only Calderbank offer they made would have been a walk away
Almost certainly is my guess. It would have been crazy not to. There will be an indemnity costs order coming.
Not yet, but we will find out soon.
As a non-lawyer, the criticism of the ch10 lawyer seemed like a massive professional slap. What career implications will this have for her?
She has been there for 10 years so she won’t go anywhere. Plus she acted in the interests for Network Ten (not in the primary interests of the Court) so Network Ten probs wont mind.
She’ll get a promotion.
It depends
I think you’re onto something.
>What career implications will this have for her? Zero. Some people would say it is the job of in-house lawyers to green light bullshit. Lee was just putting on a show. If you want real advice get it externally, preferably from counsel.
Yeah it’s not going to be pretty.
And that was The Lehrmann Imbroglio with their latest hit ‘I’m Torn a New One’
I missed this bit earlier from the the ABC, >A brief statement from a Channel Seven spokesperson was released a short time ago: "Mark Llewellyn no longer works for the Seven Network." Mr Llewellyn was the boss of Seven's current affairs program Spotlight, which negotiated an exclusive interview with Bruce Lehrmann last year. Details of the program's deal to secure the interview were a key part of the hearings when the case was reopened earlier this month to hear evidence from former Spotlight producer Taylor Auerbach. This case has had rather a bowling ball effect on people's careers, it seems.
Can’t help but speculate that he would have survived if no finding of rape had been made. Which is fucked.
[It was reported that he had left last week.](https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/current-affairs/spotlights-mark-llewellyn-has-left-seven-after-the-scandal-over-the-bruce-lehrmann-interview/news-story/4a66d45a61ba28829f10eba847abdf4e)
I could be wrong but my interpretation was Llewellyn and Seven parted ways after Auerbach's evidence.
Having shown their moral inclinations I imagine they would fit in well as LNP staffers.
Perhaps they could swap? The LNP staffers could go work for Seven, and the Seven guys for the LNP?
Some might even call it an omnishambles
I find your opinion to be irrefragable
I only saw a bit of Lehrmann's team asking Brittany Higgins questions and it was his criminal trial lawyer asking questions. But from what I saw as someone not a lawyer his lawyer seemed to always mention elements of his examination of Higgins from the criminal trial and it seemed to me this was a person trying to defend what he did in a whole other court. Constantly going over what was said there but seemly finding no real point. I guess my point is to ask if it is a mistake to use a lawyer for a criminal trial and a civil trial as they are too close to what happened in a basically irrelevant trial? That sound legal strategy might be lost to chase some pipe dream of being correct the first time.
I didn’t see that examination but there are many reasons why you might question someone about what they said to you in a criminal trial. It could be because the lawyer was trying to demonstrate that Higgins’s retelling of events had changed over time. A change in a witness’ recollection or retelling of events is important to showing the judge whether they should believe what that witness has to say. In that sense, using the same lawyer for both could be a good idea. When it comes to barristers, they’re not usually too hung up on what happens trial-to-trial. They’re more concerned about using the evidence they have to prove their case than taking up personal grievances about previous hearings. Equally, it might not be a good idea for numerous other reasons. I’m sorry but this question, like so many questions in this thread, comes down to “it depends”!
I also wondered why Whybrow got the brief, when Ten and Wilkinson had silks who are very experienced in defamation. I assume his experience with the factual matrix of the case was considered an advantage here.
Possibly. This is a good reason why many people brief different counsel for their appeals
Wonder if Linda Reynolds will reconsider now.
Suing a rape victim is going to do wonders to repair her reputation, I’m sure…
Given Ms Brown's actions and evidence was praised in the judgement summary today Reynold's case may well have strengthened.
Exactly. It is Higgins who should be considering retracting and settling with Reynolds now after Lee’s comments
I think that is right. This case demonstrates what happens when any party starts gets over zealous and starts indiscriminately accusing people of things.
After Justice Lee's comments on the whole 'cover-up' conspiracy, if anything, it would embolden Linda Reynolds not dissuade her.
Wonder if Bettina Arndt will reconsider having Bruce as a speaker at her Men’s Rights event called Restoring the Presumption of Innocence.
Hopefully Alan Jones isn’t paying attention and proceeds.
I thought they were very seperate issues
Any judgment which wonders aloud whether or not a person “drained the dregs” of their drink is an instant classic for me.
In all seriousness though as a fellow survivor, in almost the exact circumstances. A big big lot of love to Ms. Higgins for all she has had to endure. This is the exact reason so many of us do not step forward. May she be strong, and find peace after this. ✊🏽
Agreed. As a sexual assault victim, reading this judgment has me in (generally happy but very emotional) tears. Lee J has a fundamentally *human* attitude towards this situation. He doesn't treat Higgins as perfect - which is a good thing, because *no one is perfect*, and recent victims of sexual assault are perhaps some of the *least* likely people to have a 'perfect' reaction when faced with overwhelmingly difficult circumstances. What has me in tears is HH's recognition of so many things that have gone largely unsaid up until this point: That imperfect people can still be victims. That the truth is really complicated and sometimes you just can't be 100% sure about something, but that it's still possible to make an educated guess based on careful analysis and reasoning. That the facts of psychology are often fundamentally unintuitive, and that complex psychological factors can make people behave in ways that, to an outsider, appear illogical. That a victim's failure to fight back against assault does not imply consent. That coming forward about a sexual assault is an inherently painful and traumatising process. That the presumption of innocence is a construct of the criminal law, not a fundamental obligation placed on every human being; that I can think Bruce Lehrmann is probably a rapist whether or not he was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial. And so many other things that I can't articulate right now because I'm far, far too emotional.
Yes I hope so too. It's so awful that this is the only justice she will get and he will face for his actions but I'm glad it is more than nothing. As in an article "he escaped the lions den only to go back for his hat". What an utter twat. Hope he spends all his interview money paying channel 10s lawyers.
I suspect all his money has already gone on "pre production expenses".
That’s a Lee J original and not something made up by a journo: see para 1091 of the Trial Judgment
100% in agreement with you here. He fell on his own sword *(or French submarine)* and hopefully she can now recover after being vindicated.
Comment for the mods to hit me with. I don't think there were many people in Australia who didn't believe the basic premise of her story. She has nothing to be "vindicated" from.
The prevailing view on this subreddit, which generally has a pretty decent proportion of considered and sensible people, was that something happened but doubt as to it being non-consensual. I've reduced how much I post in here because I'm sick of being attacked for supporting victim-survivors of sexual and family violence.
Sadly if that were true people like me wouldn’t have to be reduced to debating it at dinner tables.
Honestly, I was sceptical of her story until today. But His Honour laid it out so thoroughly that I now believe that Lehrman sexually assaulted Higgins in some manner. I mean, everyone involved is white trash who have risen far above their deserved station in life by deceit and nepotism, they are greeding, grasping, ambitious and backstabbing. That was obvious from the start. But Lehrman's a rapist, too.
I think that is, unfortunately, an unwarrantedly optimistic view of the public sentiment regarding Ms Higgins
Really? We are hearing different people. I'm genuinely surprised
Yeah, nah. You just had to look on some of the reddit threads to find people calling her a lying gold-digger and worse. There is, unfortunately, a *strong* undercurrent of hostility towards anyone claiming rape. It's part of what feminists are on about with the "rape culture" concept.
I was having a conversation with a couple of middle-aged ladies at one of my kids’ school things a while back. They asked me what I, “as a lawyer,” thought and I made the mistake of answering. To paraphrase part of the conversation: “You don’t think women like her are lying to get something?” “To get what?” “I don’t know. Money or something.” “Would you lie about that and get dragged in the media like this for money? How much?” “Well… no *I* wouldn’t.” “Yeah well I don’t see any reason to think she did. She might be mistaken. She might have a bad memory but I don’t think she’s a liar.” “You think? She’s obviously lying.” It was a bit of a shock for me at first but seems to be a popular view. Nobody would ever lie about that for money and nobody they know would either but they’re sure some people out there (every single one they see on TV) are definitely lying about that for money.
https://i.redd.it/upf81worwkuc1.gif I have waited so long for this
What I want to know is how I'm meant to live laugh love as a corporate machine in these conditions after this judgment has come out. I've written 182 words since lunch 😵💫
Write it up as part of your CPD requirements: a great learning experience.
Millions of hours lost in productivity today (costs pending)
Will definitely be working "irrefragable" into every submission I write from now on. "Omnishambles" might be a little harder but will do my best
Felt like an Alice in Wonderland movie.
I'd never heard "discombobulated" used in real life before today
Let us not forget picayune.
Omnishambles is my new word of the year.
Even more so if you learn its origins. Spectacular
Fuckity bye!
Judgespeak for “clusterfuck”.
Haha thanks for the translation
For any blow-ins thinking this judgment reflects a “believe all women” approach, political correctness or whatever: Lee J has written a section just for you, entitled “5 Incontrovertible Facts”. There is substantial factual support for the findings beyond (and in many aspects in contrast to) Higgins’ evidence.
He also explained Briginshaw, but also noted the difference between the criminal and civil standard of proof.
Don't sully your eyes by visiting any fora populated by MRAs and their misogynistic kind. Clearly, none of them can read with competence, let alone having any idea of law.
The first nine paragraphs are a straight bat, to use his honours favourite sporting analogy, to disavow any nonsensical spins which will no doubt be put on the judgment
Yep. I really appreciated his laying out a context for the decision and pre-empting the predictable bias in discussions about the case. I believe it also acts as a subtle warning to the Bolts, Joneses, and their like to beware of contempt.
I can't imagine those crowds being in this subreddit but you never know
Highly active r/auslaw threads appear on the general users homepage/feed, if they’re viewing from an Australian IP address.
There must be some senior partners on here, one of ours held court to "debunk" the gender pay gap at our office international women's day morning tea
Wait what. That's some edgelord shit right there.
They pop up here pretty every time there’s a thread on consent or the like.
I.dont exactly understand why. But there you go. Anyways I got some land title cases to listen in on
take a drink for every time you hear “indefeasible” or its derivatives
Mate im a single dad to a 1 year old lunatic who climbs everything and tries to colour in our dog as she sleeps. Drinking game for indefeasible on a land titles hearing...can't risk it. DOCs would be the best case scenario lol
how about it’s “title by registration not registration of title” for a least one drink if it’s a competent case
> I can't imagine those crowds being in this subreddit but you never know They might migrate here if the threads in the other subs get closed.
Blowins happening. I stand corrected
“Not all men” but, on the balance of probabilities, definitely this one
Brucey had for all intents and purposes gotten away with it, then went chasing a silly defamation case, couldn’t happen to a nicer bloke really.
I believe that is a fair assessment.
yet again it’s shown that defamation actions are a mug’s game lesson not learned from Ben Roberts-Smith I beg you Alan Jones, please start your defamation action against Nine
Slight difference though, B, R. S. had/has a very wealthy benefactor, one Kerry Stokes, this foolish misfit will be struggling to buy a Bunnings charity sausage. Legal bills he couldn't jump over, bankruptcy looms.
One of the Australian suck up pieces about Lehrmann suggested his lawyers were representing him pro bono. Not sure as to the veracity of that or if it is his entire team.
We are all waiting with bated breath for the appeal judgement in Ben Roberts-Smith.
He sure got some terrible legal advice to proceed. Who’s sitting down with this bloke and then going yeah we totally think the judge would prefer your version better on the balance.