A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
If you're posting anything related to:
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
https://aussie.zone/communities
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone
“Having escaped the lion’s den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat"
Is there any way this could have gone worse for him?
Is there any way this could have gone worse for him?
Coulda been a full Oscar Wilde and resulted in charges being brought back to him after they had otherwise already been dropped.
When Mr Lehrmann faced criminal trial for sexual assault in the ACT Supreme Court in 2022, he was provided with material that both parties could have used to mount their arguments.
This material was not meant to be made public, because it was never used in open court. This is known as the Hearne v Street obligation.
However, it aired on the Seven Network's exclusive Spotlight interview with Mr Lehrmann.
Mr Lehrmann repeatedly gave evidence in his defamation case, on at least four occasions, that he did not provide Seven with anything more than an interview.
Justice Lee said he was "satisfied" Mr Lehrmann made false representations to the court about at least part of this material.
"In the absence of any other explanation, the inescapable conclusion is that Mr Lehrmann provided access to Mr Llewellyn to the relevant photographs," he said.
While conceding he was "not some sort of roving law enforcement official", Justice Lee left the door open for another court to pursue the alleged breach of the Hearne v Street obligation.
There seems to be a potential new path of legal inquiry here aside from any potential new case by the ACT. Punishments aren’t severe, but he could basically be found in contempt of court and fined or (unlikely) imprisoned.
Streisand effect turned up to 11 ... Lehrmann's wikipedia page now opens with:
Bruce Lehrmann is a former political staffer who raped a colleague at Parliament House, Canberra.
emphasis mine
Someone in the Brissy Discord mentioned they were surprised the page hadn't been locked. So I did some digging.
Turns out, the page has basically only existed since today. Up until then, it would just redirect you to the "2019 rape allegation by Brittany Higgins" section of the page "2021 Australian Parliament House sexual misconduct allegations". Today, the page was created for real, and has been edited by 9 users making a total of 20 edits. That opening has been altered to be a little more legally safe.
The sidebar still says "Known for: Rape at Parliament House" though.
And it seems they've clarified it even more now:
Bruce Emery Lehrmann is a former political staffer who was found in a civil court trial at the Federal Court of Australia, on the balance of probabilities, to have raped a colleague at Parliament House, Canberra.
Still a banger of an opening line on one's wikipedia page!
Without going back in the history again and checking, I think that's the exact wording I saw when I said they changed it "to be more legally safe".
Balance of probabilities? "More likely than not"? Is this usual for these types of legal cases?
I was under the impression decisions had to be made "beyond a reasonable doubt" and justice was based on an onus to prove guilt (e.g. innocent until proven guilty).
This seems an insanely dangerous way of determining guilt.
It's a civil case. There is no "guilt" here. No one is going to jail or gaining a criminal record. There is no criminality.
Instead, there's a judgment as to whether one has executed their civil responsibilities. And for such cases, the burden is "on the balance". IE, what is more likely.
Here, AFAIU (I haven't followed the case), someone in the media stated that Lehrmann raped someone, Lehrmann sued them for defamation, to which the basic/obvious defence, and the one employed by the media person, is that the statement in question is true. It was found, on the balance of probabilities, that the statement was true (or more likely true than not).
The line from the judge “Having escaped the lion’s den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat", AFAICT, is a reference to how Lehrmann escaped being criminally convicted (and luckily so IIRC) but then found it necessary to bring this defamation case.
Now we know he probably did it and most people if they saw all the evidence would probably conclude the same. Maybe not certainly enough to throw him in jail (though we don't know that) but certainly enough to say "fuck off with this defamation shit".
edit: spelling
someone in the media stated that Lehrmann raped someone
So, I also haven't followed the case very closely, but AIUI, it actually wasn't even that. Brittany Higgins merely went to the media and stated that she was raped by her former boss. Lehrmann merely claimed that it was obvious she was talking about him from her statements.
Thanks for clarifying.
The line from the judge “Having escaped the lion’s den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat"
is not original but had many colorful turns of phrase which you can read here.
Am lawyer, "beyond reasonable doubt" is for criminal charges. "Balance of probabilities" is for civil cases ie where jail is not a penalty option.
Defamation is civil.
Thanks! Good to know, that makes sense.
There was a criminal trial a while back, but it was declared a mistrial after some jury fuckery. They declined to re-prosecute because of the detrimental effect it would have on Higgins' mental health. As others have said, this is a civil trial, specifically, Lehrmann trying to sue the people Higgins went to in the media to tell her story for defaming him.
Truth is a defence to defamation, so proving that the claims were true (in this case, as others have said, to the balance of probabilities, rather than beyond all reasonable doubt) is a way to win a defamation case as a defendant.
Not a lawyer, but I believe the level of proof depends on whether its a civil trial like this one, or a criminal trial, like the previous one which fell apart after juror misconduct. So basically the level of proof is lower when it's about dollars rather than jail time.
This was a defamation case, i.e. a civil case. Ten's defence was that their imputation that Lehrmann raped Higgins was substantially true, so the judge had to rule on whether or not the rape happened. It is not a criminal conviction and there won't be one in this case because the criminal trial was abandoned due to juror misconduct.
Why do people feel the need to downvote when someone asks a question? This sucks for discourse. Assume good faith and downvote the trolls.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Bruce Lehrmann has lost his defamation case against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson, bringing to an end a sprawling legal saga which has gripped the nation.
In a live oral summary that took two and a half hours, Justice Michael Lee said the former Liberal staffer was not defamed by Wilkinson and Ten when The Project broadcast an interview with Brittany Higgins on Monday 15 February 2021 in which she alleged she was raped in Parliament House.
“In summary, I consider it more likely than not 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 hellbent on having sex with a woman he found attractive” and knew was inebriated, Lee said.
Lehrmann denied the rape allegations and pleaded not guilty at his trial in the Australian Capital Territory supreme court, which was aborted due to juror misconduct.
In The Project interview, Higgins told Wilkinson she was sexually assaulted on a couch in the office of her then boss, former defence industry minister Linda Reynolds, in the early hours of Saturday 23 March 2019.
In the witness box over five days Lehrmann admitted telling three different stories – including two that were lies – about the reason for his after-hours visit to Parliament House with Higgins after a night out in Canberra.
The original article contains 672 words, the summary contains 228 words. Saved 66%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I think the correct response is: “Duuuh!!????”.
The guy is a fucking creep. Just LOOK at him. Guilty as sin.
Ok Franz Joseph Gall