Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (80)
I’ve never thought of myself as a rapist. I’m certainly no Lothario – at least I wasn’t back in my heyday. In fact, I was always a rather diffident suitor (for want of a better word). But it seems I may well have been deluding myself.
You see, back in the day when I fancied some bird, as we called them then (the dinky-di term ‘sheila’ having, regrettably, gone out of fashion in my late teen years), my first recourse was to the dimly lit restaurant where I would ply the object of my affection with Blue Nun Rhine reisling or some such equally sophisticated libation. Truth be told, the wine was as much to dispel my own inhibitions as it was to dispel hers. I thought that, the sexual urge being universal between the sexes, I was not pursuing some unconscionable depredation on the object of my lust, but rather using every means at my disposal to convince her that I was someone with whom she could put aside her own inhibitions. I was not attempting to manipulate the lady into doing something which, sober, she would find physically repulsive, but rather that she should participate in a perfectly natural act with me. That she might think, ‘Well, he’s no Adonis but what the hell?’
Sometimes it worked. Sadly, most times it didn’t.
Which brings me to the concept of ‘date rape’, which we’ve been talking about literally for years courtesy of Brittany Higgins and Bruce Lehrmann case.
I have always believed, as Justice Lee has now concluded, that Lehrmann had sex with Higgins that night, and that was always been his intention. And that he had used alcohol to smooth the path. But it beggars belief to dismiss the possibility that Higgins, initially at least, entertained the same possibility. She was consuming alcohol at a rate, the court was told, which that would have left me senseless, and openly engaging in sexualized conduct with Lehrmann. As the night progressed, at some point, a relatively sober Higgins, must have known that Lehrmann’s intention was that they would ultimately have sex. And in continuing her drinking and fondling with him, she signalled a form of consent. She was, at least, effectively saying, ‘I’m not averse. Let’s see where this goes’.
Yes, Higgins ultimately had a right to finally refuse consent. But what becomes germane, is the point at which she exercises that right and manner in which she expresses it. Justice Lee’s judgment says Higgins was too drunk to exercise that right. That takes no account of whether or not she, or any other ‘victim’, would have actually exercised that right if sober.
As far as Higgins is concerned, it is reasonable to conclude that she was not averse to having sex with Lehrmann. In other words, the act itself would not be repugnant to her. And why would it? Most women enjoy it.
If we can conclude ‘on the balance of probabilities’ that Lehrmann had sex with Higgins, then it will strike many as reasonable also to conclude, on that same basis, that she went to Parliament House with him in order to have sex. At that point there was consent.
So the point is not that, when the act occurred Higgins was incapable of giving consent but that she incapable of withdrawing it. Can we conclude, on the balance of probabilities that had she been more sober, she would have? You will have to make up your own mind about that – it’s a subjective judgement, just as it was in the hands of Justice Michael Lee. But it in his case that judgment is legally binding and reinforces the fact that the consent laws mean that, if a woman is drunk, then you cannot have sex with her. How drunk? A good question. And no matter how drunk you too are, you are not permitted an error of judgement.
In the case of a driving incident, such as a fatal crash, that is a good thing. Because you made your error of judgement when you were still sober enough to choose otherwise and because the consequences of your error are so damaging.
Which brings me to my final point. Rape, in the sense of a man forcing a woman to submit to him sexually, or spiking her drink so she is not aware what is happening, is a monstrous crime and should be pursued with the full force of the law.
But the pernicious doctrine of ‘date rape’, particularly in the circumstances of the Lehrmann/Higgins matter, can, in my view, as the law stands be little more than a misdemeanour. Sex is not some act intrinsically horrifying to women. How traumatic can it be for someone, not a virgin, who embarks on a drinking spree with a man whose clear intention is to have sex, to wake up to find that, yes, they did after all have sex? In the sober light of day, she may reflect that she wishes she hadn’t done it. But it’s rather like buyer’s remorse, a bit like deciding the day after a shopping spree that she doesn’t really like that strapless dress after all.
The essence of my argument is that, if Lehrmann had been convicted in the criminal court, he would have had a criminal conviction recorded, faced a possible jail sentence, be placed on the sex offender’s register and lost his chance to practice law. That would be out of all proportion to the putative ‘harm’ he may have caused.
Lehrmann’s life has been destroyed entirely of his own making. It seems that he is something of a sleaze and pretty stupid with it. But it is possible he truly believed he did not rape Higgins, and his denial that sex took place was based on the knowledge that the ‘date rape’ consent laws would apply, and that outright denial was the safest course.
Justice Lee’s willingness to erect a blast wall between, on the one hand, Higgins lies concerning the ‘rape’ and, on the other hand, the lies she told about the claimed government conspiracy is, I suspect, challenging to the observer in the street. The nail in Lehrmann’s coffin was not that he had sex – that per se is not a crime – but that he had it without Higgins explicit consent. Justice Lee found:
Given the evidence I have already discussed and the weight I place on contemporaneous representations, I have not reached a level of satisfaction that during the sexual act Ms Higgins said, “no on a loop” and I think it is more likely than not that she did not, or was not, able to articulate anything. On balance, I find it is more likely than not that she was passive (as she later said, “like a log”) during the entirety of the sexual act.
In other words, as Lee sees it, Higgins did not explicitly withdraw consent. That, although conscious, she remained passive, without punching Lehrmann or even struggling, suggests to me that Lehrmann was justified in thinking the act was consensual.
That said, Higgins had a right to feel aggrieved. Had Lerhmann shown her some post coital consideration he might have saved himself a world of grief.
Despite the catalogue of her lies which Justice Lee exposed, Higgins is now a genuine certified 24 carat gold victim. A victim, in the first instance of Lehrmann and, in the second instance, of current swain David Sharaz. What the hell happened to ‘I am woman hear me roar’.
This whole dismal affair signals the trough in human relations which Mr O’Brien was just dipping his toe into many decades ago. The casual sex which popular culture has propagandised for a century is now just too dangerous, not for fear of a woman’s reputation or pregnancy (neither are now a serious consideration) but a man’s liberty. It is after all the liberty of men which the new system is aimed at, as the surveillance state appropriates all the protective and coercive roles formerly apportioned to individual men. Where once we had a code maintained by taboos, convention and reputation of women , we now have a code with a somewhat similar effect which represses the opposite sex. Just another win for the brides of the state.
The point that everybody has missed is this: what the hell does Justice Lee think he is doing by perverting a civil case into a criminal one?
Neither through process, nor resources nor judicial expertise can a civil court make such a proclamation.
All it has done is – since the criminal court failed to convict the man of a crime – institutionalise the defamation. The outcome is some hapless man who has never been convicted of any crime being branded a “rapist” will-nilly by everyone.
The time has come for the “truth” defence in defamation to be erased, totally.
It has become a circus for wealthy defamers to pervert the course of justice and justify their own misbehaviour.
This seems to be very similar to what happened to Mr Roberts-Thompson. Defamation proceedings are fraught with danger, particularly when the accusation is against a White man and relates to a matter of interpretation where the court of ‘woke’ opinion is already against the plaintiff. Justice Lee’s decision is supposedly 300 pages long so I’m not going to pretend that I have read or understand it and I don’t know the facts of the case in detail but the odds of the outcome which occurred must surely have been high enough to warrant a strong caution to Lehrman against proceeding. At the very best one could say that Lehrman’s conduct was that of an ungentlemanly drunken cad. Unfortunately for him, that Miss Higgins behaved like a drunken slattern is no longer a defence Every woman regardless of her station and conduct expects to be treated like a lady and the courts agree. It was no doubt galling that she had parlayed her big night out into a $2.4m payday but this ought not to have affected the judgment of his own largely self-inflicted position.
Yes, I have been ruminating on the conduct of Lerhmann’s lawyer, Steve Whybrow. He defended Lehrmann in the criminal case pro bono – fair enough. But, is he qualified to handle a high profile and high stakes defamation action? Did he adequately caution Lerhmann begore he embarked on this case?
Spot on. I would proffer an opinion this whole sleazy mess – which before the sexual revolution would have been kept under the wraps of shame for the benefit of all concerned – and the sacrificial offering to Higgins simply because she’s the female in this and never mind about her complicit behaviour – is the result of the ideology of feminism which basically says women have the right, nay, even a duty to behave as badly as the worst of males and be rewarded for it.
Yep. This has always had the “he said, she said” problem. That’s how it will remain for me. Neither protagonist is any better than they ought to be, as my granny used to say. I’m intrigued that the current Higgins “fiance” so closely resembles Lehrmann…
Bizarre.
Quote: “branded a “rapist” will-nilly by everyone”
.
Far from everyone – not by me or my friends, nor presumably by you.
As I tried to explain to a young male in my family, slowly society is giving to women, what they always craved. The ability to have sex, and subsequently deny they were responsible for what they did. Dont get me wrong, that has been happening since Adam was a boy, but with Lee’s decision it has almost been institutionalised.
.
If you just look at the facts, and Peter’s article is a good summary, to any objective bystander, from the co-workers at the pub, to the security staff at parliament house, Higgins was having a fun night. She has walked unaided, through security with Lehrmann, to the bosses office. She is found naked sleeping some time later, and a couple of days slowly makes the accusation of rape. And not rape by being physical forced, because all independent evidence is to the contrary, but by a failure to conset because of the alcohol she says she consumed. And Lee says that has the “ring of truth about it”. Nothing about her story has the ring of truth, and it is her story which must be accepted for the defense to get up.
.
Having spent many years as a legal practitioner I can tell you two very important rules to follow. The first is never launch a defamation action if you can avoid it, and always do your best to avoid certain judges hearing certain cases. The defamation action was high risk, but maybe from Lehrmanns position he had little to lose. As to Michael Lee, well he does not sound very experienced in the normal rough and tumble of relations between young adults, or in criminal law, which if he were, would illuminate some of the problems with Higgins story.
Great take.
IT is remarkable the Justice Lee could reach a conclusion that sex occurred between these two young people, in the absence of any credible evidence, particularly given much of the potential evidence was possibly destroyed. What’s even more remarkable, is that a conclusion of rape could be drawn from a weighting of two narrative littered with lies and exaggerations. Does the balance of probabilities really mean that the least improbable narrative is true, regardless of how unreliable that narrative may be?
My thoughts too.
In a sense he was asked to choose between two narratives and decide which was more believable.
He was not given the opportunity to decide that neither was believable.
For the rape assessment he found Higgins simply more believable.
He was careful to only look at the immediate declared events at and about the alleged rape.
He dismissed later anomalies in Higgins’ account, some subject to a further claim for damages against her, as being the consequence of the alleged rape.
A circular argument, as the later anomalies spoke of her judgement as well as veracity when she was openly and fully supported and ended up graduating.
The results must be sanguine for the selectors of Liberal Party staffers and advisers.
They have to attract people of calibre, temperance with clear sight.
The Justice was a bit of a wit.
After all, what’s the purpose of a well read classical education if you can’t show it off.
We know about the lion’s den [and Androcles]
The there was Isiah, who never appeared, like Higgins’ present partner.
Perhaps he will yet appear, in the forthcoming defamation case.
Best settle, no need to go back for your hat.
Otherwise all sorts of interesting people will be called to give evidence.
The most beguiling was the unusual use of the word ‘verisimilitude’ when commenting on later evidence presented by Brittany Higgins.
I felt the Ghost of Gilbert @ Sullivan coming on.
Ko-Ko. Well, a nice mess you’ve got us into, with your nodding head and the deference due to a man of pedigree!
Pooh-Bah. Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.
Pitti-Sing. Corroborative detail indeed! Corroborative fiddlestick!
.
I’m with GG above on this. So far as the law goes surely Lehrmann is still entitled to the presumption of innocence – of every possible crime that could be connected with the alleged incident. Nothing has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. I just don’t get it. The truth as a defence against defamation in cases where criminal culpability is at stake is wrong, prejudicial, unfair, in my view. How can someone be essentially “convicted” based on the balance of probabilities. What does that do to their life? George Pell could well have sought legal redress from the hyenas in the press who persecuted him. Oh yes, and risk have one of those wayward Victorian appeal judges proclaim that he was guilty on the balance of probabilities? It’s a nonsense on stilts.
I totally agree, Peter. It was open for Justice Lee to find that, on the balance of probabilities, they had sex. It was not open to him to find, on the balance of probabilities, that a criminal act had taken place. That is the province of a jury.
Lee sacrificed another victim to the goddess Feminazi.
From the material on the Sofronoff Inquiry website; exhibits, including 3 x AFP Dock/Parliament House CCTV videos (about 18 mins each) on the Fed Court website; and testimony given during trial, it appears some issues are still unresolved.
The Couch – In her affidavit, the female security guard (who appeared on the ABC 4C Program in March 2021) said she entered the room 420am and BH was lying on the couch naked with her dress and shoes on the floor beside the couch, and that her feet were facing the door. This contradicts BH who said her dress was scrunched up around her waist and in her marked up office diagram she has drawn herself facing the window.
Judge’s rejection of BL marking up QT Folders – LG (former BH colleague from Ciobo office), NI (colleague) and BH identified most of the Defence group at The Dock at the Defamation trial. BL told Police he thought they were Aides De Camp of senior Defence personnel. The men do not appear to have been questioned about whether French submarine or other defence matters were discussed. The women LG and NI were questioned and said discussion was only what was in the public domain. CCTV on the Court website shows some of the men conversed with BL, AW, LG and BH who were seated at a separate small table for about 1.5 hours before joining the large table. There are also some other unidentified men who converse with BL, AW and BH late in the evening. According to Hansard during QT 9 and 10 days later, Defence/ Defence procurement matters were raised.
Payment of Drinks – BL buying the 4 drinks as per the video Exhibit 17A Part 2 at about 930pm – that payment did not appear on either of his credit cards so whose credit card was used? AW said he would be unlikely to provide a credit card for use. Also at the bar on two occasions, BL and BH seem to be engaged in serious conversation, with BH doing most of the talking. BL does not appear to touch her once although another man later puts his arm around her waist/engages in playful arm wrestle.
Breach of security of classified document – this was on Tues 19 March. Doc left on the desk of a colleague. It seems BL was not notified that a formal incident report had been lodged by his colleague CP. The following Tuesday, FB interviewed BL regarding the security breach with BH on the Friday night. BL said he was unable to take pen or paper into the meeting. FB’s affidavit also gives an indication of tensions in the office (BL had flags around his desk and had arranged for the relocation of the fridge to CP’s office which caused disquiet to staff). FB seemed to be aware that BL was interested in pursuing work with ASIO. LG also said BL had discussion at the Dock re applying for Security job – LG told a male colleague BL was an “idiot” for revealing this. However LG appears quite friendly to BL in Exhibit 17A vids on the website.
Memories of some witnesses – the Judge describes LG as “compelling”. LG could not remember leaving the Dock Hotel, arriving at the 88mph Nightclub, whether she had anything to drink at 88mph or how or whether she returned to her own home that evening but seemed to have a clear recollection of hands on thighs and a kiss later described at “passionate” at the nightclub, even though I don’t think BH ever spoke about a kiss at the nightclub. At the trial LG said she thought most of the group was going on to 88mph but she is seen in the video kissing/hugging the ADCs goodbye. The woman’s good friend NI was one of the first people to speak to BH in the week after the incident – NI asked BH to go for a walk to the passport office. NI told the Court BL gave her “bad vibes” which she put down to her “women’s intuition”.
“Good Looking” comment – The episode at the Kingston Hotel on 2 March when BH had an informal job interview with a female media officer NH but had to leave for a commitment at the night noodle market before she’d been able to talk to fellow male staffers. There followed an argument on gender matters between NH, JW and BL. This seems to relate mostly to the other Perth-based man JW not BL. That was the night BL said BH was good looking (could it have been looked good/professional at reception desk?) which seemed to become “sexually attracted to” and then “hellbent on having sex with”. BL was supposed to have taken BH’s phone to stop her from leaving. But JW did not recall BL taking BH’s phone and felt it would have been mentioned in meetings as he reported the incident that night to the office manager (the female had told each man to F* off and said they were pressuring BH to stay) and the next day with LR.
BH Disclosure – In the days after the incident, a number of friends/colleagues eg BD, NI, CP (who was briefed by PH security personnel) either texted or spoke to BH about what had happened and seemed to have helped her to vocalise things. But some of the discussion timing in relation to BH’s disclosure “he was on top of me” to FB seems unclear. Apparently CP asked “may I ask you a very direct question?” And BH said “Sure. Go for it”. And I remember, those were the exact words, were “Sure. Go for it.” And I said, “did he rape you?” And her response was, “I could not have consented. It would have been like f***ing a log.” But if that was the case, how did BL get such a tight fitting dress off someone who was like a “log” without damaging it?
Intoxication – S Whybrow’s closing submission 22 Dec included a video where NI bought a number of rounds of drinks for the table late in the evening. This does not seem to be in AFP videos on the Court website, however those vids do show other men engaging with BH – placing or offering her drinks towards the end of the evening.
S Whybrow also said BH may not have finished some drinks but this was not accepted by the judge, even though the small table was out of view. 2 drinks were bought by the Bumble date, one by blue polo shirt guy, one by a male friend at the Bar, BH bought 2 for herself, BL went up to the bar twice with her and NI bought several rounds towards the end of the evening. Not being able to put on strappy high heel shoes is said to be an indication that BH was highly intoxicated at PH. However it could be quite challenging for a sober person to put on strappy high heel shoes whilst they are standing in a tight fitting dress (especially if there is a small buckle with a metal prong to go into a tiny hole in a strap), and if they are in a rush to catch up with other colleagues about to take a lift.
I wonder if I’m imagining this. Some time ago I became aware of the evil doers of the mongrel left banging on about a proposed bill to go before Parliament called the Pull it Out Bill. This was/is specifically designed to deter any man, anywhere, or at any time whatsoever, never again having anything to do with sex between consenting adults. The thrust (er, sorry, deliberate choice of word) of the matter is that at any time during the sex act, up to and including orgasm, if she makes an indication by saying “Pull it out”, is a refusal to continue, and therefore rape. Included in the bill was, purportedly, descriptiions of what constitutes the ‘indication’ that she uses to cease the proceedings. It was suggested that it could be anything, even non-verbal, anything ranging from a clear and firm ‘pull it out’ and on to ‘Stop’, and this did not need to be shouted to top roof top, or spoken clearly, it could be mumbled and become completely inaudible and impossible to understand or interpret, particularly at the peak moment. It would still be understood at court that she said ‘Stop’ in some manner, up to and after orgasm. If she said that, the court would be duty bound to take it as evidence of sex without consent, therefore rape., With this type of evil being plotted against us by these filth, what chance do we have.
When is someone going to use the word ” Briginshaw”? Why has that word not come up in this matter?
I believe that Justice Lee stated that he applied Briginshaw.
I made a comment a couple of weeks ago in respect to the article about John Fleming, where I thought Brigginshaw would be central to the reasoning. I got that one wrong. The funny thing is eventually courts (appellate courts really) are going to have to roll their sleeves up, and try and work out what to do with civil trials where accusations of criminal conduct are being made.
.
The simple fact is with social media and the need by mainstream media to stay relevant, accusations of criminality are going to be made more, rather than less often. Brigginshaw was just common sense, but courts hate laying down principles because it is hard work, to try and get it right. But if they don’t, sometime in the future the defamed will take steps to get their own redress, that is why judges have got to do the hard work.
Lee’s Judgement refers to Briginshaw 5 times and Briginshaw was referred to by a number of outlets, eg:
‘
WAToday/The Age/SMH
.
While this is less onerous than the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the so-called Briginshaw principle applies in civil cases involving serious allegations and requires courts to proceed cautiously in making grave findings.
.
Crikey
.
Lee noted that, as a civil case, the standard needing to be proved is different to that of a criminal trial, notwithstanding the Briginshaw principle about particularly grave allegations being dealt with in civil matters.
.
Marque Lawyers
.
When a court deals with an allegation of serious wrongdoing, such that a positive finding would be detrimental to the alleged wrongdoer, the law applies the so-called Briginshaw standard. It comes from an old English case, and basically says that the more serious the allegation, the more “exacting” the standard of proof the court should require.
.
But maybe you were referring to Quadrant only?
Marque Lawyers! LOL. I’ve seen you mob postulating on twitter.
Your inanity never fails to make me laugh.
The ‘post coital consideration’ was my initial thought that he was innocent, given the lack of DNA etc.
Did she undress in anticipation and passed out?
Did he ever return to that office and see this?
If so, what then?
Thanks to Peter, Occidental and lbloveday for your comments. I have been too lazy to have read the judgement . I was meaning that I had not noticed reference to Briginshaw anywhere, not just on QOL.
.
That just shows how uninformed I am. I have to say though that Briginshaw seems to be a bit hard to pin down. A judge saying that they have applied it really does not mean much.
.
I agree with Occidental, “eventually courts (appellate courts really) are going to have to roll their sleeves up, and try and work out what to do with civil trials where accusations of criminal conduct are being made”.
Would this be applicable to Ben Roberts-Smith – I think there is an appeal underway? And what about the Melbourne Shine Lawyers civil case by the Father of the deceased choirboy who is suing Cardinal Pell’s estate and the Melbourne Archdiocese?
Yes, could get interesting.
The only good thing that came out of this as far as I am concerned was Lee’s line about BL having escaped the lion’s den he went back for his hat.
Yes, it appears that the phrase had also been used by media lawyer J Quill in relation to an ABC Media Watch Inquiry in 2022:
ABC MediaWatch 13 February 2023
“So, would Bruce Lehrmann really be up for a full-scale trial? Defamation lawyer Justin Quill told us in December:
Lehrmann suing would be a case of a man going back into the lion’s den to retrieve his hat!
– Email, Justin Quill, Partner, Thomson Geer Lawyers, 9 December, 2022
Explaining:
… he would have to give evidence and subject himself and his story to cross examination which he was able to avoid in the criminal matter …
– Email, Justin Quill, Partner, Thomson Geer Lawyers, 9 December, 2022”
After the judgment, Quill made a statement outside the court that the case was a warning to other potential applicants who might want to “reinvent history”, make a “quick buck” or try to “con the court” as to their version events. He then referred to how “coming up with a con” might get you through a TV interview, an interview with your bosses or down at the pub with your mates but when you come to the Court and are forensically cross examined, and you can’t “get away with it”. He didn’t seem to mention the judge rejecting the “cover-up” allegations. Too bad for anyone wanting to go to Court to try to clear their name, is it the case the party with the most money wins?
Judicial attempts at humour always leave me greatly unmoved I’m afraid.
They’re just not funny people.
So now you can be judged as a rapist “on a balance of probabilities”….on the toss of a coin 50/50 you’re a rapist…oh it might rain tomorrow so I guess you’re a rapist… etc
I wasn’t in Parliament House with Bruce & Brittany nor in the Courtroom to hear the argument, so I don’t know the facts. But does anybody know for a fact what happened?
I thought Justice Lee was just another ABC news journalist…all myth and fantasy.
If Lee applied Briginshaw, it would have to have been more than 50/50 that sex occurred but it would still be his subjective judgement. As I said earlier, that was in his prerogative. But to go that one step further and declare that a crime had been committed was, in my view, a step too far.
Absolutely right. I’ve always thought and don’t know (who else does) that the dress was removed by its owner in anticipation … enter the security guard later … how to explain one’s birthday suit? Oh, I know!
Peter, to as I understand it, because the trial was a civil one, when Justice Lee deemed that Lehrmann had raped Higgins, what he was technically ruling was not that Lehrmann was guilty of the crime of rape (or, to be further technical, of penetrative sexual assault), an offence against the Crown; but that he was liable for the tort of rape, an offence against Higgins. I’m sure that Lehrmann will be cock-a-hope thus to learn that he has not been found to be a criminal rapist after all, but merely a civil rapist! The ruling certainly gives Higgins grounds for suing Lehrmann for damages, although if I were she I wouldn’t try my luck — after all, if the case reached the Federal Court, the trial judge might not be Michael Lee!
Colin,
yes I agree. But the practical effect is that Lerhmann is now marked as a ‘rapist’, with all that that implies. But had the trial proceeded, could a judge have directed the jury to the effect that if they found that sex had occurred and if they believed beyond reasonable doubt that Higgins was too drunk to withdraw her previously signalled consent, then they must find him guilty of rape?
There seems something wrong with the law of defamation (in both the Roberts-Smith and Lehrmann cases) when a person not convicted of a most serious crime cannot practically defend their reputation when alleged to have committed it. I also find it harsh on Lehrmann that a female companion, sober enough to walk with him unassisted to a parliamentary office at 1:30 am for the obvious purpose of an assignation, should be held to have withdrawn legal consent a few minutes later due to her intoxicated state.
It has been briefly mentioned before but this tawdry tale begs the question as to how or why Ministers such as Linda Reynolds and Michaelia Cash employ such characters as Higgins and Lehrman as advisers?
What’s worse is that political operatives of this kind – “advisers”, staffers and other flunkies – now seem to be a prime source of new MPs, on both sides. They have little or no real-world experience and their skill is in playing internal party politics and climbing the greasy preselection pole. Just the sort of people we don’t need in politics.
Nonetheless, when Elbow talks about changing the law in relation to DV (always defined as male on female), one suspects he means reversing the onus of proof. Subjective balance of probability will do nicely, thank you.
The noble notion of innocent until reasonably proven guilty is becoming much like Lewis Carroll’ Cheshire Cat.
Dear Editor
This article sickens me – it gives all the reasons why women say things like ‘men have too great a sense of entitlement’ over the female body.
Just to reply to a few of your ‘suppositions’:
1. No, not all women enjoy sex. I was totally frustrated with it, didn’t have an orgasm ever with intercourse, couldn’t work out what the fuss was all about until I worked it out with myself.
2. Br explicitly said she was not interested in having sex with the other B -like having sex with a log or some such comment – look it up yourself.
3. Even the author suggests the number of drinks ‘would have left me senseless’. The implication the general public understood was that with so much alcohol, Br was blotto, insensible, unable to function. In such cases no man can imagine a woman giving consent.
4. The words you imagine Br said are spurious – you have no idea what was in her head, she quite clearly said she didn’t know she was going to Parliament House, thought she was going home I think. Again, it is in the records.
In any case, the author is doing readers a disservice by reimagining the night from the point of view of a man who feels an entitlement to sex, and thinks by getting a girl drunk that ‘date rape’ will be okay.
Sorry, but the law has moved on to an extent. A woman unable to give consent is not giving consent, regardless of any signals earlier. She may have changed her mind from an initial, okay, this guy’s not too bad, to No way, this guy’s a heap of shit.
Too many women have been damaged by men like the author, who acknowledged his past and used alcohol for his own way. All I can say is to men who must ejaculate, learn to masturbate and the world will be a better place.
I think of all the women, date raped and later pregnant.
You guys don’t even think of the consequences of your act. Grow up and take responsibility for your bodies.
Margo O, I drafted a post trying to point out the various problems in your comment, from the misrepresentations of what Peter wrote in the article, to the contradictions inherent in your reasoning. But it got so long as to be unreadable.
.
Years ago in my youth I invited the then object of my affections out for dinner. After having a nice meal, and copious libations, I suggested we go back to my house. She said she wanted to go to the night club. On seeing the disappointment on my face she said words to the effect- “Occy, it takes more than a nice meal and wine to fuck me, I have to dance first!” So we went dancing. For some reason the women of my youth have gone from being smart, strong, and down to earth, to being vulnerable flowers, – little princesses, for whom parents, parliaments politicians and now courts seem to be in a never ending process of placating.
Feminist bot alert.
I find it hard to believe that a genuine person would come on here and start banging on about her orgasms or lack thereof. I suspect an ideological activist. ie a feminazi
She, or someone else using that moniker, has previously made sensible comments in QOL about Aborigines.
I’m with the blokes on this one, Margo O. Sorry, but you sound a bit b and t.
I’m with the blokes too, Margo O. You are too shrill. It is the way of things for men and women to be drawn to each other, and some women have a happier time sexually than others, as do some men. Sexual miseries and communicative incompetence knows no gender. Fortunately, to help out, there are manners surrounding sex which both men and women know about, involving common human courtesies, certainly in the past anyway. The apparent loss of such courtesies is one of the problems now, for they went a long way towards making things tolerable and easy to handle. We also accepted responsibility for our own mistakes and didn’t lead men on just to tease them. Men had a term for women like that, just as we called men who were too handy ‘gropers’ and avoided them. We had workable systems of control, and were not ‘petals’ unable to stand up for ourselves..
I may have missed something in this long and convoluted saga but, without in any way seeking to defend Lehrmann’s behaviour, I find it hard to accept the Judge’s decision that he was guilty of raping Ms Higgins. If the civil standard of proof “on the balance of probabilities” is to make any sense at all it must be analogous to the American equivalent of “on the preponderance of evidence”. It seems that this decision seemed to ignore the fact that there is no substantive objective evidence that Higgins was raped by anybody. Certainly, we know without a shadow of doubt that she and Lehrmann were in the ministerial offices at the same time, but that’s all we know. As the Judge quite reasonably concluded, he was dealing with a pair of liars, so I find it difficult to believe that he gave more weight to Higgins’s claim to have been raped over Lehmann’s denial, when Higgins chose not to go immediately to the police or to hospital or doctor to have it authoritatively confirmed that intercourse had taken place.
As things stand, the Judge simply preferred one liar’s version over the other’s without any objective evidence of any sexual assault in the balance.
What troubles me is that Justice Lee 1) “knew what BL was thinking” on the way to Parliament House ( but not BH?), 2) accepted the evidence of a known, false witness, 3) for an accusation made 18 months after the event , 4) for a blatantly political purpose. I have not read Lee J’s full judgment but have read BL’s police statement in full. It seems that every piece of evidence adduced is the subject of dispute and challenge, for example. the alcohol consumed, the failure of BL’s credit card to reconcile with the allegations, the state of undress of BH and her other activity on Bumble that night.
We can look forward to the Appeal.
What is bothering me is the miss use of the parliament house for this sordid affair. Both should be in prison for that degrading act. A spit in the face to Australian people. It is not a brothel, it should be a house of honour.
Remember John Brown? Although if I recall his was a conjugal act.
The Judiciary are as prone to swim with the tide as most, often more so. I’d say Lee is a captive of the feminazi monster – they all are – and was making a lame attempt to rescue the reputation of his colleague, Drumgold.
Welcome to Oz in the 21st century. You will enjoy your servitude.
I can’t help crowing, I saw it coming and left, best decision of my life.
To think, when all the heat and noise and dust (and cash disbursement) have settled, that this could have been so easily avoided by a very simple procedure: a signed, legal permit (Pre-Bonk Consent). This would have spelled out all the requisite conditions and declared the mental fitness (with breathalyser test readings) of prospective parties, and be completed and signed by both (or all, in cases where there might be more than two), prior to the act (the precise nature of which should be specified). Surely such a form would be no trouble for a half-competent government lawyer to draw up. They could be sold at post-offices, chemists, supermarkets and convenience stores, universities, pubs or clubs (maybe even parliament houses? Ubers and taxis?). Given the risk of rape in marriage, it might be prudent for married couples to have some on hand at home, should the need arise. It might be prudent, and provide additional protection, to have signatures witnessed by a JP, doctor or lawyer, within a specified time prior to the act. The completed and signed forms, of course, should be retained in safekeeping by all participants for a set time period, say seven years, or alternatively, lodged with a central register.
You must design an App for that
PMP: thought this 2-minute skit might provide some amusement. Don’t worry about not understanding what they’re saying; you don’t need to!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vVTvqew39Q
Sounds like foreplay for Wokes. That’ll put the kibosh on them propagating their awful species. Good idea.
In the recent article about the travails of Fr John Fleming in Adelaide, there was a debate about whether the law should be changed in civil cases so that, where a claim of criminal behaviour, especially abhorrent behaviour, is made against someone, the claim should have to be proved to the criminal standard, beyond reasonable doubt; and/or that the person should have the presumption of innocence. Either or both may be sound reforms, but it is not the law at present, and such a radical change is a matter for Parliament, not the Courts. Justice Lee was applying the law that was binding on him.
Sadly, there is no guarantee that such a change will necessarily confer the appropriate protection. Cardinal Pell was tried in a criminal court, where the standard of proof was beyond reasonable doubt. It didn’t stop the jury convicting him, in what was an appalling miscarriage of justice.
Pell’s case was appalling, but even more so, in my opinion, was that of Lindy Chamberlain, whose appeal was rejected by the High Court, but who, after years in jail during which she gave birth to her 4th child, was exonerated and her conviction set aside.
.
Yes, it was terrible for a Priest/Cardinal to be wrongly convicted of pedophilia, but how worse for a loving mother, having recently given birth to the daughter she’d always wanted, to be wrongly found guilty of slaughtering her, and then while in jail giving birth to a second daughter, a “gift” to replace the baby the dingo killed, who was immediately taken from her and raised by foster families until her mother was released from jail when she was three.
.
I don’t know where you were back then, but the mobs baying for Lindy Chamberlain’s blood were, to me, worse than those attacking Pell.
You have no doubt read the report of the Morley Royal Commission into the conviction of Chamberlain. In many respects it is a fascinating window into the process of criminal justice not just in Australia, but probably everywhere. When you reflect on it, you again come to respect the underlying wisdom of “beyond a reasonable doubt”. The fact that innocent people are regularly convicted of crimes they did not commit shows the frailty of the human element.
.
On another note I wish there was a recording on Youtube of Jeff Kennett being interviewed the morning after Pell’s original conviction, on one of those breakfast television shows. The “hosts” were trying to get Kennett to admit that Pell was some sort of monster, and Kennett would have nothing of it. They seemed incredulous that Kennett would continue to defend Pell after he was convicted. I thought it was one of Kennett’s finest moments.
I agree with you about the Chamberlain case. I gave birth to my only daughter in August 1982 and not long afterwards Lindy had her daughter called Kahlia. I was very upset and concerned about what I saw as a tremendous miscarriage of justice at the time, where even if I had believed Lindy was guilty, which I did not, how cruel it felt to add salt to her wounds by taking away her new baby. In my distress, I asked a friend who was a State Government EEO Commissioner to please see what she could do, and she said some key women were working on it, but nothing eventuated to help Lindy.
Indeed. There was a cartoon in an elevator in Owen Dixon Chambers that poked fun as the statement the dingo took the baby. I know, I saw it.
Both Chamberlain and Pell were the victims of disgracefully ignorant and utterly unprofessional journalists and media management who fed on the incompetence and corruption of the relevant police forces. An important factor was that both were people of strong Christian faith which, like the Jewish, is anathema to most journalists who have no reason to fear retribution for ramping up the mob’s hysteria. Had either been Muslim, they would have more careful.
We are very poorly served by our mass media.
You’ve hit the nail right on the head, there, DT. Mob rule is mindless and horrible, but is fed by stupid and irresponsible media reporting that feeds off sensationalism. Most of our journalists nowadays incline lefwards into wokery, and hate the tame religions — while leaving more prickly and potentially lethal targets well alone.
Exhibits on the website of the Sofronoff Inquiry into the ACT Criminal Justice system include Police documents which contain a detailed timeline of BH disclosures and discrepancies dated June 2021. One officer told a superior he thought there was insufficient evidence to proceed. The senior officer said the ACT DPP would recommend prosecution. He further said if it was his choice he would not proceed but it was not his choice and there was too much political interference. The document stated that Investigators had serious concerns about the strength and reliability of BH’s evidence. Throughout the investigation, BH had been “evasive, uncooperative and manipulative” including refusing to provide her phone, deliberately deleting content from phone before providing to police, and no records could be identified in relation to her disclosures about seeking medical attention.
In Oct 2022 a police officer told BL’s lawyer he was distressed by the prosecution as he thought BL was innocent. He stated if the jury came back with a guilty verdict he was resigning. The transcript of the police interview with BL is on the Court website Exhibit 31, as are BL’s medical records Exhibit R95 at the time he was admitted to RNS Hospital following The Project Interview – he had contemplated suicide at St Leonards train station. I think it came out at the trial last year that BH had circulated the dossier to journalists with BL’s name on it – she said she forgot to redact it.
There has been much commentary about the text messages between BH and her colleague BD they were “close (and at times intimate) friends” (as per the judgment) but the judge says he did not deal with BD at length. The text message exhibits reveal the discussions immediately following the incident: BD asked about BH’s hangover – she replies she needs to slow down a bit, its probably gotten a little out of hand recently ha ha. BD says he wants to party with her and see her in full flight. BH replies she just gets herself into trouble and that she needs to keep that shit locked down. BD says haha do tell, to which BH replies just the standard shenanigans. She also says she is studying on the Sunday. When BD says her weekend touched both ends of the spectrum – passing out in Parliament and then studying and asked her what she’d been studying – she replies she really had to balance it out and that she had been hooked into economic policy analysis and media law. BD says he is coming to Canberra later than week and wants to take her out for dinner. BD and BH had also had the text message exchange a month earlier about needing am impressive political sex scandal, one that the Party could be proud of.
In the judgment “Selective Retention and Curation of Data” – there is reference to other missing text messages, including one with a Security Guard on the morning BH left the Ministerial Suite – Mr AW (with whom Ms Higgins had earlier matched on Bumble (T910.45)), and with Ms Hamer, Major Irvine, and Ms Gain. Irvine and Gain had been at the Dock – with Gain going on to 88mph, and Hamer was the media officer who offered BH the media position a few weeks earlier. AW didn’t seem to have been called as a witness even though he started his shift at PH at 8am on the morning after the incident and according to docs on the Sofronoff Inquiry website, exchanged a dozen or text messages with BH in the days after.
From docs on the Sofronoff Inquiry website, it the Judge in the 2022 criminal trial thanked all for the manner in which they conducted the trial, commenting that the role of defence counsel was poorly understood, and said the prosecutor’s behaviour had been extremely fair. However, wouldn’t any defendant be concerned about a prosecutor texting his builders re his investment property renovations while the video of their police interview was being played in Court? From other docs on that website, it seems the Victims of Crime Commissioner provided extensive support for BH, even making cups of tea and supplying during the breaks, driving her around Canberra and assisting with her travel arrangements. Perhaps the VCC had to undertake those tasks in case of any leaks.
The above comments are overwhelmingly apt, and show why Justice Michael Lee’s judgment was very, very disturbing. May I add two further pertinent remarks?
Firstly, it might have been reasonable for Lee to infer, on the balance of probabilities, that the two went back to Parliament House to make the two-backed beast, but not to conclude that they did so. Could Lehrmann not have suffered from “brewer’s droop”? As for Higgins’ subsequent claim to an ex-boyfriend that she had done something stupid — a claim to which Lee attached great probative significance –, surely throwing off your clothes (does anyone under the sun believe Lehrmann tore them off her?) and spreading out naked on a couch, then being sprung by a security guard, qualifies as something mega-stupid.
Secondly, the ramifications of Lee’s judgment, as a precedent not just, de iure, for future civil actions but, de facto, for criminal trials, are horrific. It means that when any husband and wife, or any male and female, have sex after the female has become inebriated beyond the slightly tipsy, the male — regardless of whether he is stone cold sober or equally inebriated — has raped her, even if beforehand she has shouted “yes” a dozen times in the hearing of the whole neighbourhood, and, with shaky hand, signed a stat. dec. affirming that she wants sex. Even if the male claims benefit of mens rea by alleging that he honestly thought she was consenting, it will be held — as by Justice Lee — that if he knew she was inebriated he necessarily knew she was not, or might not be, capable of consenting. Setting aside the question of criminal charges, males in the Family Court are certain now to be subjected to even greater routine perversions of justice than hitherto.
P.S.: I forgot something else worth mentioning. Lee’s criteria for deeming that Lehrman was guilty of rape necessarily imply that from no earlier than when he and Higgins entered the taxi and Lehrmann told the driver to go to Parliament House, he was guilty of criminal intent-to-rape. The criteria also necessarily imply that in the case of the other male-female pairs who had been at the same venue, and who also drove off with seeming intent to do the deed of darkness (that’s King Lear, you ignorami!), the male was ipso facto guilty of intent to rape.
I fully share your and Sydgal’s concerns about Justic Lee’s conclusions re. what happened. While BL might have left their drinking venue with the intent of bonking BH, and she clearly made it obvious to him that she was up for it, there’s no reason to conclude that their intentions were consummated. On arriving at Parliament House, and going through security, BL might have had serious second thoughts, or had lost his desire, for whatever reasons (alcohol might have been a factor, as is well known). Meanwhile, she prepared herself, waited on the couch, and then fell asleep, to be woken up later in an embarrassing state that needed explanation and justification. If truly violated, raped and then deserted, surely she’d have wanted to attend a health clinic (and/or police) immediately for consolation, reassurance and evidence? It all blew up only a few years later, when new, wheeler-dealer boyfriend Sharaz, seeing an opportunity, stepped in to manipulate a political assassination, using simple BH as his pawn. The easy $2.4 million “compensation” was icing on the cake, courtesy of a grateful Labor team, whose role still awaits revelation. Of course, Albo’s government will do everything to keep the lid on this.
Interesting that there was no reference to her leaving her knickers at home because she didn’t want their seams to show through the sheer dress: the judge could have inferred that she went in search of that which she much later claimed happened. Maybe he left because she went to sleep.
All in all a judgement with more questions left open than it purported to solve.
Perhaps the best decision the good Justice could have made was to fine the participants 10K each and send them on their way admonishing them to “grow up” for who knows what really transpired.
Agree – an open & shut case of “he said, she said.
End of.
All along it was apparent Lehrmann and Higgins had sex and he was denying it as a defence against being found guilty of sexual assault and Higgins misrepresented her role in order to keep her job. What on earth were young people like this doing advising Ministers of the Crown? As to Lee’s declaration of rape having occurred that term now has no legal meaning and Lee’s comment that he was assessing that Lehrmann had raped Higgins but only on the balance of probabilities not beyond reasonable doubt was a mischievous comment given there is now no such legal concept of rape. This abuse of terminology to fuel fear reminds me of how all and sundry in the media, social and mainstream, throw the term ‘pedophile’ around as a meaningless term of abusive slur. Decades ago society still had protocols in place to control who slept with whom and when so as to avoid the consequences of playing with fire. That has all gone by the wayside and the consequences manifest.
30 April, 2024
“How traumatic can it be for someone, not a virgin, who embarks on a drinking spree with a man whose clear intention is to have sex, to wake up to find that, yes, they did after all have sex? In the sober light of day, she may reflect that she wishes she hadn’t done it. But it’s rather like buyer’s remorse, a bit like deciding the day after a shopping spree that she doesn’t really like that strapless dress after all. ” Exactly! As far as I am aware, Higgins has not claimed that she was physically harmed, except for that famous bruise that, it seems, most people now believe was caused by something else. Aside from any physical harm, the crime of rape is a moral one. It consists in taking something utterly precious and irreplaceable from a virgin or from a woman (or, for that matter, a man) who was a virgin when she married and has been faithful to her husband. In either case, it is a horrible crime.
Of course, either type of woman, acting as Higgins did, would still not be a victim. But, in her case, she was an unmarried woman who obviously had experience in what God intended to be for married people only. Years later, she is yet to marry while continuing to live as though she were. Even IF the judge’s judgment were correct–what did Higgins still have that she could have taken from her by a man?
After reading 61 comments I’m a bit exhausted. Maybe, and just maybe: “Sharia law” would have made this saga a lot easier for us? A couple of millions saved for the weary tax payer on top of it. Who could argue? Irony off…..
Lapidation would have been a neat and permanent solution but adultery was not the conduct in issue. I believe that 100 lashes is the penalty for fornication.
For both parties, or just the woman? I’m not sure what the penalty is for straying singles, but I’m told that in Saudi Arabia, at least, they still condemn married women found guilty of adultery to death by stoning (delivered by dump-truck). It’s never the bloke’s fault, as he was simply led astray . . .
This was a defamation case where balance of probabilities applies. The scribe applied the rapist label.
Rape is a criminal matter where beyond reasonable doubt applies. The complainant has not been found to be a rapist – irrespective of the criminal court case being was abandoned. He was not.
Whether applying balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt standards, there is still a need for evidence. The evidence was fiction and proven beyond reasonable doubt to be so.
The defamer was shown to be incompetent, unprotected by her organisation and cavalier.
The judge acknowledged all this rubbish. He then formed an opinion. A bit frightening.
The movie will not be as good as the event no matter what Hollywood injects into it.
Quote: The complainant has not been found to be a rapist
.
I wasn’t in Court, but the Australian Financial Review is reputable, albeit Left-leaning, and when they (and others similarly) report, with quotation marks:
****
Michael Lee uttered the definitive “Mr Lehrmann raped Miss Higgins” in Federal Court at about 1.15pm on Monday
****
I believe that is what the Judge said, and so it is reasonable that “The scribe applied the rapist label”, if in fact his only use of rapist in “I’ve never thought of myself as a rapist” can be properly taken as he was applying it to Lehrmann.
The evidence – yes, including The Dock CCTV here: https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/lehrmann/exhibits (3 x AFP videos), The demeanour of those present, who was talking/spending time with who, who else was buying/offering drinks. BH and BL sat with AW and LG at the small table for a long time, but in the group setting they don’t engage much at all. There appears to be serious conversation at the Bar on 2 occasions, he doesn’t touch her. The UK Lipreader flown out should have been able to read what she was saying the first time, as speech was quite visible (why wasn’t Aust lipreader engaged?). Lehrmann’s lawyer played a video in his closing where he showed one of the women bought 3 spirit drinks on multiple occasions later in the evening but that does not seem to be in the videos online, BH stumbles at the bar while texting about 10pm but seems to walk fine later in the evening.
I find two flaws with Justice Lee’s reasoning.
1. He was reported as taking BH’s difficulty in putting her shoes back on after walking through the metal detector as evidence of her inebriation – so serious that he reasoned she could not have consented. As someone comments above, her shoes have multiple thin straps that were almost certainly difficult to buckle. She gives up, grabs them in hand, and trots after Lehrman and the security guard – keen, it would seem, not to be left behind. She shows no sign of inebriation – neither staggering nor swaying.
2. BH is found by a security guard in the early hours of the morning naked. This contradicts her evidence that she woke and her dress was pushed up around her waist. In her words, it would have been ‘like f***king a log’. How then did BL manage to remove a tight fitting dress (or push it up to her waist), seemingly without any damage to said dress? How does one remove a tight dress from an unconscious ‘log’ without waking the log? This suggests either consensual intercourse, or even BH trying to seduce BH, and is supported by the testimony of the security guard and the physical evidence that the dress was fine to wear subsequently.
That is not even to mention the bruise on the wrong leg and on the outside of the thigh.
As a former senior Crown prosecutor, my sympathies in this case lie with Fiona Brown who has been treated disgracefully and the ACT police who have acted with a professionalism consistent with what I observed over ten years in Canberra but they were were treated abominably during the criminal trial aspect..
As a former indicting authority, aspects of this case that astonished me from the beginning were the apparent choice of Parliament House for rape when its corridors are constantly patrolled by security, the absence of complaint to an obviously sympathetic female security officer, absence of corroboration of sexual intercourse that would have been available from prompt medical examination, and the finding of Ms Higgens naked by a female security guard. Over twenty-five years prosecuting crime, including accusations of rape, in the superior courts I have never experienced a rape where the victim was totally undressed before sexual intercourse took place, but I suppose it could happen.
Justice Lee appears to have found that Ms Higgens was so drunk that informed consent was not realistically possible, but when I was a Crown prosecutor police stations were always equipped with a long straight white line that was intended to test degrees of intoxication as the luckless suspect was required to walk it. I viewed the video of Ms Higgens pacing happily along a corridor in Parliament House and could see no evidence of the unsteadiness. normally associated with drunkenness.
I end this comment with the thought that the person who really deserved $2.4 million from the taxpayer for loss of career and stress was Fiona Brown.
To me, there are three things that are of overwhelming importance.
First, Lehrmann, if he had sex with Higgins, would surely have had enough sense to simply say it was consensual. For all he knew, she had medical/DNA evidence that would prove it occurred. Was he really so rash as to expose himself to proof that they did indeed have sex?
Second, there is no evidence at all that Higgins’ manner or appearance at the moment sex began made it plain to Lehrmann that she was too out of it to consent. To be intercourse without consent (the judge called it rape) it had to be shown not just that she was no longer consenting but also that Lehrmann knew that. Absent such evidence it would be impossible to find rape.
Third, the judge’s finding that Higgins was too drunk to consent appears unreasonable. She had tripped happily down the corridor on entering, and the whole thing took no more than 45 minutes. The fact of she having been found passed out later on has very little to say about her state when the act occurred.
If Lehrmann appeals I predict the finding will be set aside.
The Judge in the Defamation trial says BL was a “23 year old male cheating on his girlfriend” and like most young men, he must have known that “excessive alcohol consumption leads to impaired judgment, and lowered inhibitions”. As BL coudn’t go back to his place to be intimate, a place he could access for the Minister’s Office, and buoyed by getting BH into an Uber, he told her he had “some whiskey to to show her or something”. There was a reference to this being a “cliched pick-up line used by men of ill intention to lure women to a private place”. The judge concludes that there was one dominant thought running through his head and it was “nothing to do with French submarine contracts”, Although 2 women were asked about submarine discussions, the men don’t appear to have been called.
Regarding the whisky, there is reference to JW’s affidavit 23 Sept 2023 at 38 but this does not appear on the Fed Court website, only an affidavit of 29 Nov (most of it redacted) which refers to his earlier 23 Sept affidavit. The judge also relied upon the evidence of NH, a media officer who appears to have offered BH the media job on 2 March at the Kingston Hotel, but I think there was some evidence at trial that NH may only have been aware of the alcohol in the old office, not the set up of the new office. BL had said alcohol may have been in boxes due to the move. The cleaners didn’t seem to mention alcohol in their reports – no signs of a party. So if there were drinks, did BL spend time cleaning up?
The judge on BH being left in the office includes: “One would expect a man with any manners… would check whether she had gone .and if not, how she was getting home safely… Mr Lehrmann was still behaving dishonourably by having sexual intercourse with Ms Higgins while in a relationship, and his girlfriend was trying to contact him – presumably trying to work out where he was and why he was there at 2:15am. Given he had satisfied himself, and that he knew his girlfriend was awake and was attempting to contact him, calling an Uber and getting out of the Ministerial private office with celerity (and leaving Ms Higgins undressed) is the action of a cad, but is nonetheless explicable.” BH told FB at the first meeting that she was responsible for her actions and for what she drank. We don’t know about the relationship with the girlfriend, but BL’s medical report on Fed Court website includes reference to BL trauma from an abusive relationship for 7 months over 2019 – states his girlfriend often physical hit him, verbally abused him, and controlled him. He sustained a serious hand injury (laceration) in one incident during which she hit him with a smashed cup. At this point they broke up. BL had a new girlfriend when the Project story broke and he was admitted to a mental health clinic , his Cellebrite report on the Fed Court website gives an indication of his care for the gf at that time: eg thanks her for all her support, says he does not want to burden her, says for her to takedown her social media photos with him in them, says he loves her, this is all very new and scary, he just doesn’t want her to be stressed or affected by him, she is his main worry, it’s ok if she does not want to talk to him, his greatest fear is losing her, he wants her to be safe as the primary priority. GF ends the relationship by text while he is in the clinic.
The payment of the 4 drinks at 930pm, payment of meals at the Dock (food receipt for $118 which included a discount from an entertainment card) and payment of uber to the nightclub still seem unresolved. Also, multiple rounds of drinks bought by female colleague as per the closing submission 22 Dec don’t seem to feature in the drinks table in the judgment.