Andrew L. Urban
Bruce Lehrmann has not been convicted of rape – yet his name and reputation have suffered as if he had been. It was in the civil proceedings that Justice Lee ruled in favour of Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson’s claim that their allegations of Lehrmann raping Brittany Higgins was not defamatory but ‘probably’ true … on the balance of probabilities. All the while Lehrmann maintains his innocence – and has just lodged an application to appeal Lee’s judgement.
Justin Quill
“Bruce Lehrmann is a rapist! Bruce Lehrmann is a rapist!” twice for good measure, said Justin Quill of the lawfirm Thomson Geer, who had acted for Network Ten, direct to TV cameras after Justice Lee’s judgement. Lee was not pleased and demanded a transcript before the hearing on costs. Lehrmann has been labelled a rapist in a civil proceeding, just as he would have been had his trial completed and a jury found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, to all intents and purposes, he is regarded in the same bad light as a criminal – which he is not. The difference has been blurred. Quill re-emphasised the blurring, saying “how can it be unreasonable to publish something that was true?”
Chris Merritt
How does this sit with the rule of law? I asked Chris Merritt, vice president of the Rule of Law Institute of Australia:
The remarks by Justin Quill, who is one of this country’s leading media lawyers, have lessons about the catastrophic consequences of using the law of defamation to deal with accusations that are, in essence, criminal in nature.
It inevitably leads to confusion and undermines public confidence in the justice system’s ability to distinguish between guilt and innocence.
Those who assert that the defamation victory by Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson means Bruce Lehrmann is a rapist can draw support from passages in the judgement of Justice Michael Lee of the Federal Court
But that is not the full story and to treat it as such is unhelpful.
Bruce Lehrmann
Lehrmann has not been convicted by Justice Lee or anyone else on a criminal charge of rape. Under the criminal law he is not a rapist.
So while a defamation judgement on the lower civil standard of proof has upheld the truth of the imputation that he is a rapist, that is not the case under criminal law.
This will remain so even if Lehrmann loses his appeal in the defamation case.
The blame for this appalling position rests with the authorities in the ACT who stopped the criminal case against Lehrmann because of what they said was concern for the wellbeing of his accuser, Brittany Higgins.That decision stripped Lehrmann of his right to have the accusation against him tested against the rigours of the criminal law.
Describing Lehrmann as a rapist without explaining the significant differences between defamation and criminal justice – and the failure of the ACT justice system – only adds to confusion and relieves the ACT authorities of the odium that is rightfully theirs.
The negative impact on Lehrmann is the same as a criminal verdict: on getting a job, renting a home, mixing socially, forming relationships … just doing the shopping as a widely publicised, recognisable man. As I write, he is effectively living in hiding at a remote location.
If my experience of responses to Bruce Lehrmann’s name is any guide, there are only two: he’s a rapist, OR he’s been unjustly treated, not only by the court but by the whole coterie standing behind Justin Quill, from Higgins to Ten to Wilkinson.
But what if Lehrmann’s appeal goes ahead (lack of money is an impediment) and the court upholds his appeal? Suddenly, Quill’s question is turned back on his client who published something that was NOT true. What then? Will Lehrmann be entitled to significant damages after all?
DISCLOSURE: Andrew L. Urban has been invited to work with Bruce Lehrmann on his book about his experience, in due course.
In relation to Justice Lee’s summary at 601 of the Judgment:
“… 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”,
…from contemporaneous CCTV on the Federal Court website, and evidence given at the trial, it appears that:
* Bruce and Brittany went to Parliament House, where there were security guards on duty and an AFP office just near the security checkpoint. There was CCTV in the corridors, just near the Ministerial Suite. The male security guard pointed to the cameras as they walked through. It seems the female security guard was doing regular patrols of the corridors. Not sure if the PH environment would be described as secluded with the number of staff and cameras onsite?
* It didn’t seem as if BL was “hell-bent on having sex” with BH based on the CCTV at the Dock on the Fed Court website. They engage in serious discussion at the bar on 2 occasions, with BL looking concerned and pointing to the group outside, while BH is smiling and doing most of the talking. BL, AW, BH and LG sit at the small table for about 1.5 hours, with various people such as BC and JT joining the table. The large table of public servants is more animated than the group at the small table. BL does not seem to ever touch BH, although BH and BC hug when she arrives, she hugs a male friend at the bar, she and JT clasp hands and BH touches BL on the shoulder a couple of times. BH engages in extended conversation with BC and JT , while LG, AW and BL talk together. BH is also physically close to an unidentified man drinking wine who whispers in her ear at about 11pm. At the PH security checkpoint, BL seems more interested in texting on his phone than in BH.
* Did BL find BH sexually attractive? It seems that a colleague NH said that at a gathering at the Kingston Hotel on 2 March BL said BH was “good looking” and took BH Higgins phone to try to prevent her from leaving to attend the night noodle market with her flatmate. Apparently, NH had offered BH the media job at this informal job interview and wanted BL and male colleague JW to advise LR they supported the appointment. The men were concerned that they had not been included in the discussion. It appears that the conversation became heated, NH swore at each of them and then, according to NH evidence at trial, wrote her resignation letter to LR on the way home. JW was so concerned about the incident he reported it in person that night to the office manager. At the trial, JW said he thought if the phone incident had happened he would have mentioned it to the office manager that night. Bot sure how “good looking” then became “sexually attracted to”. Someone could also say a person “looks good” or “looks professional” on a Reception Desk. An ABC journalist recently described the 2 brothers who went missing and were sadly killed in Mexico as attractive – the public accepts such a description, it is not controversial.
*Had there been mutual passionate and kissing at 88MPH? No CCTV even though LG had texted friend NI (who was at the Dock) the name of the nightclub the next day and NI told Police BH had told her about 28/29 March they went to 88MPH. But as at 16 April 2019, Police did not know the name of the nightclub so no CCTV obtained. According to SW’s closing submission, LG could not remember how she got home, who she went home with and whose home she went to, yet she remembered the kissing. AW, BL and BH did not refer any kissing at 88MPH.
*Encouraging BH to drink, BH being very drunk. Looking at the way BH walks on the CCTV on the Court website, her gait does not change much from when she arrives, to when she goes to the bar, and then to the bathroom to when she leaves the Dock. Handbag strap securely in place on her shoulder, competent walking in strappy high heels. She does stumble once while texting at the bar about 1010pm, but she had crossed one foot in front of the other, so perhaps some lack of balance when changing weight on her foot. It was difficult to put the shoes on at PH but they were strappy high heel with small buckles. She had undone the buckles and it was taking her a while to do them up while BL and the security guard were waiting to get a lift, so that is probably why she was told to pick the shoes up and put them on upstairs. Re the drinks, several of the other men bought drinks for BH, eg JT, Bumble date, male friend at bar. SW’s closing submission video showed that a female bought numerous rounds of drinks from about 1030pm – they looked to be spirt-based, JT placed an extra one in front of BH in the video and BC offered her another after she had sculled one – these were the infamous drinks on the large table.
As I’ve remarked before, Justice Lee’s judgement that Bruce was ‘hell bent’ on sex with Brittany Higgins sits at odds with the undisputed fact that she was alone in the ministerial suite long enough to fall asleep while waiting for Bruce to turn up from his office area.
Quite apart from his failure to discharge his obligation to apply to the facts the long accepted and applied standard required by the High Court in Briginshaw, Justice Lee even came up with a finding of fact that Lehmann “was hell bent ” on having sex with Higgins no matter what! Where, in the whole case, is there ANY evidence to support such a finding? That finding, alone, is sufficient to conclude that Lee J ought not sit in judgement of any contested proceeding. It’s the “civil” law equivalent on the Tasmanian creation of the ” wrench” . The wrench, invented by the prosecutor and delivered to the Jury with all malice by the disgraceful Blow J.
Yes, Bruce was so hell bent on sex with Brittany she fell asleep waiting for him to come over from his area in the ministerial suite.
Do we have any Sociologists, Psychologists, Criminalogists regularly reading here.
So many theses that could be initiated within these subjects in Australia, there is a syndrome in the Justice Systems of the States, of Injustice not Justice. Why.
I wrote and sent a letter to the Premier of Tasmania at the time, and I pointed out that Society is an Organism. I said Tasmanian Society was largely controlled by Bacteria, the plural of Bacterium. Corruption, not by an individual, by many individuals which in Tasmania and anywhere is Cronyism and Crime.
They ignore Dr Moles, they ignore Robert Richter QC, ignore evidence presented by Eve Ash Documentary Maker. So what can we do, start sending out Black Dots ie Treasure Island, or Point The Bone at the Criminal Injustice Participants.
Surely there are Laws in place to prevent crime within the Justice System. Is that not what the Governor General is for, and the ADF to protect citizens from within the borders from corrupt regimes who have their own agenda.
Thanks, I just had a Cough Syncope, Owen.
Dear Countess,
I take your point, “the Law is an ass”, and it has been for a very long time, just ask Charles Dickens (in Oliver Twist). There was, as you say, no direct evidence of the rape other than that of the, so called victim, Higgins. On her own admissions, Higgins is an abject liar, which has had the effect of attempting pervert the course of justice, a very serious crime indeed.
It is not so much that the Law is an ass, but rather, the heard of asses that administer it!
One such ass, Justice Michael Lee, is hopefully going to be exposed by his peers in Lehrman’s appeal as not properly applying the requirements of the Law (vis Briginshaw v Briginshaw) which requires that in making a finding of criminal conduct in a civil proceeding, the judge has to apply a far higher standard of proof than mere balance of probabilities. Briginshaw is a 1938 decision of the High Court. What if Lee J was biased? I think he is. Properly presented, the appeal will be successful, at least, it should be. Lee J’s judgment will be tested as to his application of Briginshaw against his judgment in Lehrmann v Ch 10 and Wilkinson.
Lehrman got immediately fired for entering Parliament House, Higgins followed Lehrman into Parlaiment and did not. She got rewarded $2.4m of taxpayer’s money for her lies and deception at all levels. Lehrman, again as you say, is ruined.
This whole controversy, assessed on the balance of probabilities, is plainly a Labour Party scam, cooked up by Shiraz and Higgins, executed by ministers Gallagher and Dreyfus. Labour’s involvement in all this is far deeper and far worse than is publicly known. The alleged separation of powers, judiciary, church and parliament is an illusion, always has been. Justice Lee is a God fearing Labour man; so what would you expect.
Having said all that, praise be to those judges, magistrates and registrars who remain objective, impartial and true. The rule of law is not negotiable.
I know, Lehrmann. He’s no rapist, and I’m convinced about that, beyond reasonable doubt!
Thanks for pointing that out Robert . Yes the burden of proof in a civil proceeding in relation to a criminal matter is expected to be higher than the low bar civil standard . Declaration of probable rape , with no forensic support makes Lee a fool . Can we afford Judges who are fools .? Yes but only if you are not the accused. As you know Briginshaw case is undeniable precedent PV
I lived at my sons place, who is now deceased over 1 year. Ex ADF, ex Iraq Security. Single vehicle accident, lost control wet night, thrown out. He was probably driving like they did in Iraq, when they had passengers to protect from roadside attack. I had previously years ago stayed for 3 months on my own, and practised darts. I love darts. Its cheap. I got a job with tree planters for 18 months, and lived in town, driving out to the bush daily which was great for my head. Wedgetail eagles and F111 Fighter Bombers over our worksites.
Unitl it all folded up and I changed vocation for survival, driving tankers.
Which leads me to The Point of Conversation. 6 years after I fled from Tasmania, I was still so traumatised it is beyond my belief, but I experienced it. The time frame is absolute because I was going to a Christian Church and a bloke their put me on to a job. And, I was so traumatised then, if I started to tell him about Tasmania, within a couple of minutes I was overdosing on cortisol. I now all about it, and so do the mind controllers like Tavistock and it has been used for years, psychological warfare and that is what is happening in Tasmania, Australia, and throughout the world. I have won, I am not a victim, I am not a survivor I am a victor, as is Bruce Lehrmann, he has no case to answer like Sue Neill-Fraser and all the other sufferers supported by Wrongful Convictions. Owen.
I have a proposal, for Bruce. I own a bush block, he can stay there as long as he likes rent free. I will help him set up camp. Its easy living in the bush these days, its not far from civilisation or metropolis by vehicle. The block is a haven of last resort to, heal and consolidate. It is designed for Outlaws, designated by The Sheriff. This might sound comical, ridiculous, but I am serious and true.
Owen.
Hi Owen PV here . I went through a similar thing to Bruce but in spite of impossible forensic anomalies i was found guilty !
We have evidence of perjury and police and DPP collusion with witnesses . Perversion of the Course of Justice . A wonderful man by the name of David Jackson QC now deceased said to my wife ” its extraordinary. There is no case here. Leave to appeal nonetheless was refused. Shame on our legal fraternity who seek a win and not the truth. Back to your point ! A woman with 2 kids was living in a caravan on her own land on acres out of sight of any neighbour . She was ordered out because there was no approval sought . I gather she is now a homeless mother of two. PV
I can not believe the mindset in Australia today, an old bloke in a bus on private property same thing. Ordered off by council. Some States or Councils may be different, I am not sure. Wind back the clock to 1915, the Coo-ee March from Gilgandra to Sydney; these people, the authoritarians we are reading about, none would have volunteered, they are not Australian. They may have been born here, but have no connection to the Nation. They are traitorous scum to general society, and all I can say is they must have fried their brains with illicit drug use, they have no commonsense or decency. Owen.
How can Bruce be a “rapist “when a criminal court has not declared him a rapist ?This is an injustice which shows ” the Law is an Ass “which condemns and has ruined his life without a shred of proof .