Judge says likely Higgins was raped in Parliament:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-15/ ... /103706656
A more balanced account than appearing in some other reports here.
Lehrmann vs Higgins
Re: Lehrmann vs Higgins
Oh, what a tragic!! A biased left wing organization like the ABC prints something to cover its own backside when they were up to their eyeballs in the original "get Morrison" brigade over this!! I suppose you could put your political rivals on trial during a Presidential campaign and jail him. That's another option, instead of defaming him in the media. And it wouldn't be anything at all like the USSR, China or North Korea. Really it wouldn't.
Are there any lengths at all the Left won't go to in order to protect the narrative they themselves created? More "balanced" than my son being right at the centre of this "omnishambles" (which is how the Judge described this tawdry affair and these sleazy individuals)??!!! Having his name (and his fellow staffers) trashed in this same media as somebody who 'covered up' a rape and who has now been vindicated by Justice Michael Lee. Anything like that? The same Justice Lee who said there were "partisan players" ready to exploit this issues for their own political game, and #metoo of course.
The same media which published pictures about the former PM and his staff, blaming them for a cover-up when the Judge said THERE WASN'T ONE. On this basis the woman in question lied and was awarded $2.54m. As I said, our 'vets' don't even qualify for this. My son had previously worked in the same office, alongside the woman Judge Lee said had behaved impeccably; Fiona Brown. The previous Defense Minister had called Higgins a "lying cow" and she has now been proven correct. Let's see what the Defamation Court in WA now makes of the Judge's findings.
Bruce Lehrmann fallout: former judges say NACC should investigate Brittany Higgins compensation payment
Brittany Higgins’ $2.445m compensation payment should be investigated by the National Anti-Corruption Commission in light of new findings from the Federal Court, two former judges have declared, with one saying the former Liberal staffer could be ordered to pay the money back due to “untrue” statements made in her claim against the commonwealth.
Judge Michael Lee on Monday found Ms Higgins made false representations in the personal injury claim, which resulted in the Albanese government issuing the multi-million-dollar payout after just one day of mediation and with no consultation with senior Liberal ministers at the centre of it.
The jurist’s intervention puts a focus on how the NACC will handle the payout, and heightens questions about why Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus signed off on the payment so quickly.
Details of the payout were revealed during Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation case against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson, which concluded on Monday after judgment was delivered in favour of Ten and its presenter.
Peter Dutton said on Tuesday Liberal senator Linda Reynolds had “absolutely been vindicated” by the outcome of the case, in which Justice Lee found no political interference had taken place in the handling of the rape allegation in Parliament House.
In her claim, Ms Higgins blamed Liberal ministers Senator Reynolds and Michaelia Cash for mishandling her rape allegations against Mr Lehrmann, exacerbating a “toxic and harmful” work environment, subjecting her to “victimisation, ostracism” and pressuring her not to discuss the assault or their response to it.
Retired WA Supreme Court judge Kenneth Martin KC said Justice Lee’s findings meant the commonwealth could make a claim for damages against Ms Higgins, and try to retrieve compensation money. “How does she keep the $2.445m settlement amount, which was paid on the basis not of whether she was raped or not, but in terms of the so-called oppressive or bullying or inappropriate conduct that she was exposed to in the aftermath of the incident?” he said. “The deed, which went into evidence, says that Ms Higgins warrants the truth of all these facts as the basis for the payment of that settlement amount. If those facts are false, which the judge has found some of them were, then the basis for the payment is undermined.”
Former NSW Supreme Court judge Anthony Whealy KC said the NACC would be entitled to look at the case and “could not ignore altogether the judge’s findings about these untrue statements”.
The untruths Justice Lee outlined included Ms Higgins’ claims Senator Reynolds “did not engage with (her) at all” during the 2019 election campaign after she learned of the rape, and that members of the Australian Federal Police’s Parliament House unit informed Ms Higgins “they had been told to investigate a sexual assault” on March 27, 2019.
Justice Lee found Ms Higgins also falsely stated Yaron Finkelstein, the principal private secretary to then-prime minister Scott Morrison, was “a regular presence” in Senator Reynolds’ office advising her chief of staff Fiona Brown “on how to deal with (Ms Higgins) in light of the sexual assault by Mr Lehrmann”. She also gave false evidence in claiming Senator Reynolds “did not engage with (Ms Higgins) at all during the election campaign” and “avoided (Ms Higgins) and made clear that she did not want the claimant attending events with her”.
Justice Lee said the commonwealth deed went some way to particularising the “cover-up allegation” that formed part of her claim to have suffered victimisation, harassment, bullying and pressure to stay silent at the hands of senior Morrison government officials. He stressed, however, that Ms Higgins was not a party to the defamation case, and therefore “no findings in this proceeding bind her and, of course, no relief is sought in this proceeding in relation to the commonwealth deed.”
Mr Martin, who practised as a judge for 14 years, said there were grounds to question the legal advice provided to Labor in terms of “why it should pay that amount of money, in circumstances where a lot of those facts ... are all thoroughly disputed”.
“In terms of the keeping of the money versus the commonwealth who paid it to her, the deed would seem to say ‘we’re settling with you and making this payment to you on the basis of these facts which you promise are true’,” he said.
“If some of those facts as promised, are, in fact, not true, which the judge has found in this judgment ... there would seem to be a basis to say, ‘well, you’ve got those funds as a settlement based on facts that are now highly questionable’. So theoretically there could be a recovery action by the commonwealth.”
The Australian does not suggest Ms Higgins should pay the money back, just that a former judge has indicated possible options available to the commonwealth given Justice Lee’s findings.
Ms Higgins’ claim was particularly critical of Ms Brown, alleging she told the chief of staff on the Tuesday after the incident that she had been sexually assaulted by Mr Lehrmann.
Ms Brown has vehemently denied that Ms Higgins told her about the alleged assault in the immediate days after.
Ms Higgins also claimed that “Ms Brown made it clear by her words and demeanour that the events of 22/23 March 2019 must be put to one side and that (Ms Higgins) needed to remain silent about the sexual assault, in order to keep her job/career … In that context, (Ms Higgins) felt she had no choice but to abandon pursuit of the complaint of sexual assault with the AFP.”
On Monday, Justice Lee found these claims to be untrue, and said Ms Brown, who spent two days in the witness box, conducted herself “in a careful and generally risk-averse way”. He “unhesitatingly” preferred her evidence to that of Ms Higgins or Mr Lehrmann.
Mr Martin said he expected the compensation claim to be investigated by the NACC.
“I would have thought it would push in that direction,” he said. “If the judge says someone’s received $2.445m of taxpayer money, based on facts that are not established or falsely stated, then, yes prima facie, I would say that is something that they should cast their eye over.”
Senator Reynolds last year referred the matter to the NACC, with a complaint lodged against Mr Dreyfus over his handling of the compensation payment. It is unclear whether the agency has launched a formal investigation.
Mr Whealy KC said the NACC would be entitled to look at the “overall situation since the complaint has been referred to it”.
“But I think the NACC would have to be satisfied itself as to the fact that they were untrue,” he said. “So it might be part of its investigation, and they are armed with that information, it would be entitled to look at the conduct of the government in relation to the settlement.”
He said the NACC would be required to determine if the payment was “simply a matter of maladministration, or whether it amounted to some time of corrupt conduct”.
Mr Martin and Mr Whealy said Ms Higgins would not be investigated in any NACC investigation; only the government’s actions could be probed.
Mr Dutton said on Tuesday Senator Reynolds had been “vindicated” after her reputation was besmirched, and she had the right to pursue the matter in whatever way she wished from here.
Senator Reynolds is still engaged in a defamation case against Ms Higgins and her fiance David Sharaz, with mediation last month failing to produce an outcome.
Are there any lengths at all the Left won't go to in order to protect the narrative they themselves created? More "balanced" than my son being right at the centre of this "omnishambles" (which is how the Judge described this tawdry affair and these sleazy individuals)??!!! Having his name (and his fellow staffers) trashed in this same media as somebody who 'covered up' a rape and who has now been vindicated by Justice Michael Lee. Anything like that? The same Justice Lee who said there were "partisan players" ready to exploit this issues for their own political game, and #metoo of course.
The same media which published pictures about the former PM and his staff, blaming them for a cover-up when the Judge said THERE WASN'T ONE. On this basis the woman in question lied and was awarded $2.54m. As I said, our 'vets' don't even qualify for this. My son had previously worked in the same office, alongside the woman Judge Lee said had behaved impeccably; Fiona Brown. The previous Defense Minister had called Higgins a "lying cow" and she has now been proven correct. Let's see what the Defamation Court in WA now makes of the Judge's findings.
Bruce Lehrmann fallout: former judges say NACC should investigate Brittany Higgins compensation payment
Brittany Higgins’ $2.445m compensation payment should be investigated by the National Anti-Corruption Commission in light of new findings from the Federal Court, two former judges have declared, with one saying the former Liberal staffer could be ordered to pay the money back due to “untrue” statements made in her claim against the commonwealth.
Judge Michael Lee on Monday found Ms Higgins made false representations in the personal injury claim, which resulted in the Albanese government issuing the multi-million-dollar payout after just one day of mediation and with no consultation with senior Liberal ministers at the centre of it.
The jurist’s intervention puts a focus on how the NACC will handle the payout, and heightens questions about why Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus signed off on the payment so quickly.
Details of the payout were revealed during Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation case against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson, which concluded on Monday after judgment was delivered in favour of Ten and its presenter.
Peter Dutton said on Tuesday Liberal senator Linda Reynolds had “absolutely been vindicated” by the outcome of the case, in which Justice Lee found no political interference had taken place in the handling of the rape allegation in Parliament House.
In her claim, Ms Higgins blamed Liberal ministers Senator Reynolds and Michaelia Cash for mishandling her rape allegations against Mr Lehrmann, exacerbating a “toxic and harmful” work environment, subjecting her to “victimisation, ostracism” and pressuring her not to discuss the assault or their response to it.
Retired WA Supreme Court judge Kenneth Martin KC said Justice Lee’s findings meant the commonwealth could make a claim for damages against Ms Higgins, and try to retrieve compensation money. “How does she keep the $2.445m settlement amount, which was paid on the basis not of whether she was raped or not, but in terms of the so-called oppressive or bullying or inappropriate conduct that she was exposed to in the aftermath of the incident?” he said. “The deed, which went into evidence, says that Ms Higgins warrants the truth of all these facts as the basis for the payment of that settlement amount. If those facts are false, which the judge has found some of them were, then the basis for the payment is undermined.”
Former NSW Supreme Court judge Anthony Whealy KC said the NACC would be entitled to look at the case and “could not ignore altogether the judge’s findings about these untrue statements”.
The untruths Justice Lee outlined included Ms Higgins’ claims Senator Reynolds “did not engage with (her) at all” during the 2019 election campaign after she learned of the rape, and that members of the Australian Federal Police’s Parliament House unit informed Ms Higgins “they had been told to investigate a sexual assault” on March 27, 2019.
Justice Lee found Ms Higgins also falsely stated Yaron Finkelstein, the principal private secretary to then-prime minister Scott Morrison, was “a regular presence” in Senator Reynolds’ office advising her chief of staff Fiona Brown “on how to deal with (Ms Higgins) in light of the sexual assault by Mr Lehrmann”. She also gave false evidence in claiming Senator Reynolds “did not engage with (Ms Higgins) at all during the election campaign” and “avoided (Ms Higgins) and made clear that she did not want the claimant attending events with her”.
Justice Lee said the commonwealth deed went some way to particularising the “cover-up allegation” that formed part of her claim to have suffered victimisation, harassment, bullying and pressure to stay silent at the hands of senior Morrison government officials. He stressed, however, that Ms Higgins was not a party to the defamation case, and therefore “no findings in this proceeding bind her and, of course, no relief is sought in this proceeding in relation to the commonwealth deed.”
Mr Martin, who practised as a judge for 14 years, said there were grounds to question the legal advice provided to Labor in terms of “why it should pay that amount of money, in circumstances where a lot of those facts ... are all thoroughly disputed”.
“In terms of the keeping of the money versus the commonwealth who paid it to her, the deed would seem to say ‘we’re settling with you and making this payment to you on the basis of these facts which you promise are true’,” he said.
“If some of those facts as promised, are, in fact, not true, which the judge has found in this judgment ... there would seem to be a basis to say, ‘well, you’ve got those funds as a settlement based on facts that are now highly questionable’. So theoretically there could be a recovery action by the commonwealth.”
The Australian does not suggest Ms Higgins should pay the money back, just that a former judge has indicated possible options available to the commonwealth given Justice Lee’s findings.
Ms Higgins’ claim was particularly critical of Ms Brown, alleging she told the chief of staff on the Tuesday after the incident that she had been sexually assaulted by Mr Lehrmann.
Ms Brown has vehemently denied that Ms Higgins told her about the alleged assault in the immediate days after.
Ms Higgins also claimed that “Ms Brown made it clear by her words and demeanour that the events of 22/23 March 2019 must be put to one side and that (Ms Higgins) needed to remain silent about the sexual assault, in order to keep her job/career … In that context, (Ms Higgins) felt she had no choice but to abandon pursuit of the complaint of sexual assault with the AFP.”
On Monday, Justice Lee found these claims to be untrue, and said Ms Brown, who spent two days in the witness box, conducted herself “in a careful and generally risk-averse way”. He “unhesitatingly” preferred her evidence to that of Ms Higgins or Mr Lehrmann.
Mr Martin said he expected the compensation claim to be investigated by the NACC.
“I would have thought it would push in that direction,” he said. “If the judge says someone’s received $2.445m of taxpayer money, based on facts that are not established or falsely stated, then, yes prima facie, I would say that is something that they should cast their eye over.”
Senator Reynolds last year referred the matter to the NACC, with a complaint lodged against Mr Dreyfus over his handling of the compensation payment. It is unclear whether the agency has launched a formal investigation.
Mr Whealy KC said the NACC would be entitled to look at the “overall situation since the complaint has been referred to it”.
“But I think the NACC would have to be satisfied itself as to the fact that they were untrue,” he said. “So it might be part of its investigation, and they are armed with that information, it would be entitled to look at the conduct of the government in relation to the settlement.”
He said the NACC would be required to determine if the payment was “simply a matter of maladministration, or whether it amounted to some time of corrupt conduct”.
Mr Martin and Mr Whealy said Ms Higgins would not be investigated in any NACC investigation; only the government’s actions could be probed.
Mr Dutton said on Tuesday Senator Reynolds had been “vindicated” after her reputation was besmirched, and she had the right to pursue the matter in whatever way she wished from here.
Senator Reynolds is still engaged in a defamation case against Ms Higgins and her fiance David Sharaz, with mediation last month failing to produce an outcome.
Last edited by Belle on Tue Apr 16, 2024 5:49 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Re: Lehrmann vs Higgins
What is funny is the near-total avoidance,discussion, of the fact the Judge ( not a biased leftwing organization) has found and reasoned, rather convincingly, that Lehrmann was not credible, lied, and more likely than not raped Ms.Higgins in Parliament,findings the Liberals have long denied.
At $2.4M for a rape, seems the Government was able to settle pretty cheaply.
Re: Lehrmann vs Higgins
That finding is NOT in dispute. The Liberals NEVER denied a rape; how could they when nobody knew about it? She only told about it days later when forced to 'explain' her security breach before being about to be fired. What they denied was a calculated cover-up by the former government's staff.
Do be aware that a civil finding is nothing like a criminal conviction. Law 101. The Judge said she might have been lying because she was 'trying to process' what had happened to her. A criminal court wouldn't be interested in lying, no matter what. It's provable facts which concern the courts. Unless, of course, the Left pursues the 'my feelings' get-out-clause. This wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Read what I said. It's the lies she told the world about the political cover-up which she deliberately undertook, along with her boyfriend, and which caused the Judge to name them both LIARS and the whole affair an "omnishambles". The same affair which nearly destroyed our son, the former government's staff and the PM himself - who was bullied by feminazis and the then opposition into issuing an apology in parliament for something he knew absolutely nothing about.
She lied about the PM staff, about most aspects of that evening - to the extent that a jury locked up for 6 days in the original criminal trial could not arrive at a verdict. Until somebody brought additional reference material into the jury room and the trial was aborted.
THOSE ARE THE FACTS. We watched the judgment being brought down on a live transmission. It took over 4 hours.
Higgins has also written a draft for the book deal she got and this draft was published, damaging the reputation of one of her bosses, a former Minister (now out of politics). My daughter-in-law worked there with that former Minister in that very office at that time and she has told us the whole story was a massive lie from a woman who was an underling of no importance and who wanted to be noticed!! In fact, I remember my daughter-in-law saying at the time she was working for the then Minister, "he wouldn't even know my name" - unlike the (former) PM, who was always considerate and caring with his staff!!
An employer has NO RESPONSIBILITY for a decision people make to arrive in the workplace at 2am and which has zero to do with their work. Unless you think somebody arriving at any office at any hour of the night has a legal obligation to another person who claims they were 'raped. For example, the local Scout hall where a cleaner might have a key. It's only an idea the Left could perpetuate because they're always victims and somebody else always has to pay.
The newly-established anti-corruption body which Labor established is now looking at this. The payout was made before ANY FACTS were established, let alone a criminal trial, based on her say so and lies about a government cover-up. It was a political expedient for Labor and one the electorate won't forget.
We shall see if the new corruption commission finds that the government got out 'cheaply' with that massive payout - which millions of Australians find completely unacceptable. And if the Opposition isn't going to hammer this right to the next election I'll eat my hat. With or without salt and pepper.
This whole case has thrown #Metoo under the bus, as well as a series of recently-aborted zero-evidence cases brought before the Director of Public Prosecutions in at least two Australian states. When the Left goes on the rampage it's a bull in a china shop.
My son and daughter-in-law have moved on from this and are well out of politics making money from the law. They've just purchased a waterfront property and are making plans to move. Unlike Higgins, whom nobody will ever employ again in Australia because she's a serial liar and trouble-maker.
Do be aware that a civil finding is nothing like a criminal conviction. Law 101. The Judge said she might have been lying because she was 'trying to process' what had happened to her. A criminal court wouldn't be interested in lying, no matter what. It's provable facts which concern the courts. Unless, of course, the Left pursues the 'my feelings' get-out-clause. This wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Read what I said. It's the lies she told the world about the political cover-up which she deliberately undertook, along with her boyfriend, and which caused the Judge to name them both LIARS and the whole affair an "omnishambles". The same affair which nearly destroyed our son, the former government's staff and the PM himself - who was bullied by feminazis and the then opposition into issuing an apology in parliament for something he knew absolutely nothing about.
She lied about the PM staff, about most aspects of that evening - to the extent that a jury locked up for 6 days in the original criminal trial could not arrive at a verdict. Until somebody brought additional reference material into the jury room and the trial was aborted.
THOSE ARE THE FACTS. We watched the judgment being brought down on a live transmission. It took over 4 hours.
Higgins has also written a draft for the book deal she got and this draft was published, damaging the reputation of one of her bosses, a former Minister (now out of politics). My daughter-in-law worked there with that former Minister in that very office at that time and she has told us the whole story was a massive lie from a woman who was an underling of no importance and who wanted to be noticed!! In fact, I remember my daughter-in-law saying at the time she was working for the then Minister, "he wouldn't even know my name" - unlike the (former) PM, who was always considerate and caring with his staff!!
An employer has NO RESPONSIBILITY for a decision people make to arrive in the workplace at 2am and which has zero to do with their work. Unless you think somebody arriving at any office at any hour of the night has a legal obligation to another person who claims they were 'raped. For example, the local Scout hall where a cleaner might have a key. It's only an idea the Left could perpetuate because they're always victims and somebody else always has to pay.
The newly-established anti-corruption body which Labor established is now looking at this. The payout was made before ANY FACTS were established, let alone a criminal trial, based on her say so and lies about a government cover-up. It was a political expedient for Labor and one the electorate won't forget.
We shall see if the new corruption commission finds that the government got out 'cheaply' with that massive payout - which millions of Australians find completely unacceptable. And if the Opposition isn't going to hammer this right to the next election I'll eat my hat. With or without salt and pepper.
This whole case has thrown #Metoo under the bus, as well as a series of recently-aborted zero-evidence cases brought before the Director of Public Prosecutions in at least two Australian states. When the Left goes on the rampage it's a bull in a china shop.
My son and daughter-in-law have moved on from this and are well out of politics making money from the law. They've just purchased a waterfront property and are making plans to move. Unlike Higgins, whom nobody will ever employ again in Australia because she's a serial liar and trouble-maker.
Re: Lehrmann vs Higgins
101, precisely why I noted the Judge said it was " likely " , not that he said " beyond a reasonable doubt." He did not say she might have been lying about the rape, only about the " bullying." It's obvious no one in the then Government believed her then or now about the rape, just the Judge who feels the rape was probable.
-
jserraglio
- Posts: 11954
- Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 7:06 am
- Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Re: Lehrmann vs Higgins
The only thing that never changes is change itself.
Belle in April, 2024 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 5:33 pmOh, what a tragic!! A biased left wing organization like the ABC prints something to cover its own backside when they were up to their eyeballs in the original "get Morrison" brigade over this!!
LILLIPUTIAN hypocrisy by the hard Right has grown by many a meter in a little over two years! It now threatens to become downright Brobdingnagian!!Belle in February, 2022 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 10:39 pmOur Australian government has shamed us and angered large swathes of the conservative base for deliberately prejudicing a jury trial on the altar of political opportunism. Too late; our PM [Scott Morrison] is done! This was the last straw. Somebody needs to show him the door. Trouble is, this will make way for a communist who "hates Tories" and who is wedded to the old failed socialist economic models. (It would help if he could string a sentence together without embarrassing elisions and develop a vocabulary of more than 100 words!) And I'll blame our PM for that when it happens.
We'll turn off the TV during a Labor 'reign' so that progressives can fight other progressives to see whose sensibilities have been rubbed the most raw - and we won't have the tolerate any of it. Protecting our assets is going to be much more complex and difficult. (There's always the kids and early inheritance!)
Cow-towing to hate-fuelled termagants is proving to be a toxic stunt, which serves nobody, in modern politics. And, of course, men are guilty by reason of their gender. Feminists have turned our society into a toxic sludge and women, desperate and dateless and looking to build a nest in their mid-late 30s, are being overlooked by huge numbers of males who've already lost everything they worked for in divorce. The fact that nobody in the media exhibits the slightest curiosity about this phenomenon is very telling.
It would help, however, if these practitioners of prolixity could string a sentence together without embarrassing elisions.
Last edited by jserraglio on Tue Apr 16, 2024 11:09 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Re: Lehrmann vs Higgins
More asinine commentary from the giant chip on the shoulder. Infantile, narcissistic comments. As I said, bitterness has a long tail and is very very resilient - especially when there are zero friendships in the real world to temper extremist views. In my experience on music boards all the trolls - all, bar none - were aggrieved, embittered lefties. Most of them very short of cash and skills useful to the economy. You can literally see the screaming in the graphics, emboldened type, exclamation marks and hyperbolic emotion.
You on the Left tried to do the same thing to Bret Kavanaugh; destroy his reputation on the basis of lies. That's exactly what our left wing Labor government did to Morrison and his government over this matter and there are now legal suits in progress.
The Left can only destroy; building anything is beyond their remit.
Here we have the latest Defamation suit. Note that Higgins was ordered into mediation by the court and she immediately admitted herself to hospital. Try these antics in the court? You bet she will. It's called "coercive control".
False cover-up allegations destroyed my reputation, says Linda
ReynoldsLinda Reynolds is suing Brittany Higgins' fiance Brittany Higgins.
By PAUL GARVEY
SENIOR REPORTER
Linda Reynolds has spoken out for the first time since the Federal Court comprehensively debunked suggestions she and her office had engaged in a cover-up of Brittany Higgins’ rape.
The WA Liberal senator, who was the defence minister at the time her staffer Ms Higgins was raped by colleague Bruce Lehrmann in the minister’s parliamentary office, said the findings handed down by Justice Michael Lee during his verdict in Mr Lehrmann’s defamation had finally “set the record straight”.
“For three years I have endured intense public scrutiny, vilification, vile trolling and have been demonised as the villain in a story of a political cover-up I have always known to be untrue. Fiona Brown and I have lost our careers, had our reputations destroyed and have had our health seriously and irreparably compromised,” Senator Reynolds said.
“The decision of his Honour Justice Lee has finally set the record straight with respect to the conduct of Ms Brown and myself and the demonstrably false narrative that has dominated headlines and ruined lives and careers. To say I am pleased with the findings in relation to Ms Brown, myself and the cover-up that never was, would be an understatement.”
Beyond Justice Lee’s key finding that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Lehrmann had in fact raped Ms Higgins, the judgment was notable for demolishing the notion that Senator Reynolds and her chief of staff at the time, Ms Brown, had tried to cover up the incident.
The so-called “cover-up narrative” was at the centre of the Network Ten reports that prompted Mr Lehrmann’s unsuccessful defamation action. Senator Reynolds was subsequently demoted from the defence portfolio, and she recently announced that she would retire from politics at the next election.
Senator Reynolds is currently suing Ms Higgins and her fiance, David Sharaz, for defamation in the Western Australian Supreme Court. That matter is scheduled to go to trial later this year, with the senator vowing to push on with the claim.
Senator Reynolds said she did not wish to make any further comment at this time given her ongoing defamation proceedings against the pair.
“I note as a matter of law that the findings by Justice Lee are not binding on Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz in respect of their defences to my actions in the Supreme Court of WA. I therefore remain committed to fully vindicating my reputation,” she said.
In his judgment, Justice Lee slammed the cover-up allegation pushed by Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz as “objectively short on facts, but long on speculation and internal inconsistencies”.
“Trying to particularise it during the evidence was like trying to grab a column of smoke,” Justice Lee wrote.
He found that there was no evidence that anyone was suggesting to Ms Higgins for her not to proceed in any way contrary to her own judgment as to what was best for her, let alone pressuring or threatening her to do so.
You on the Left tried to do the same thing to Bret Kavanaugh; destroy his reputation on the basis of lies. That's exactly what our left wing Labor government did to Morrison and his government over this matter and there are now legal suits in progress.
The Left can only destroy; building anything is beyond their remit.
Here we have the latest Defamation suit. Note that Higgins was ordered into mediation by the court and she immediately admitted herself to hospital. Try these antics in the court? You bet she will. It's called "coercive control".
False cover-up allegations destroyed my reputation, says Linda
ReynoldsLinda Reynolds is suing Brittany Higgins' fiance Brittany Higgins.
By PAUL GARVEY
SENIOR REPORTER
Linda Reynolds has spoken out for the first time since the Federal Court comprehensively debunked suggestions she and her office had engaged in a cover-up of Brittany Higgins’ rape.
The WA Liberal senator, who was the defence minister at the time her staffer Ms Higgins was raped by colleague Bruce Lehrmann in the minister’s parliamentary office, said the findings handed down by Justice Michael Lee during his verdict in Mr Lehrmann’s defamation had finally “set the record straight”.
“For three years I have endured intense public scrutiny, vilification, vile trolling and have been demonised as the villain in a story of a political cover-up I have always known to be untrue. Fiona Brown and I have lost our careers, had our reputations destroyed and have had our health seriously and irreparably compromised,” Senator Reynolds said.
“The decision of his Honour Justice Lee has finally set the record straight with respect to the conduct of Ms Brown and myself and the demonstrably false narrative that has dominated headlines and ruined lives and careers. To say I am pleased with the findings in relation to Ms Brown, myself and the cover-up that never was, would be an understatement.”
Beyond Justice Lee’s key finding that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Lehrmann had in fact raped Ms Higgins, the judgment was notable for demolishing the notion that Senator Reynolds and her chief of staff at the time, Ms Brown, had tried to cover up the incident.
The so-called “cover-up narrative” was at the centre of the Network Ten reports that prompted Mr Lehrmann’s unsuccessful defamation action. Senator Reynolds was subsequently demoted from the defence portfolio, and she recently announced that she would retire from politics at the next election.
Senator Reynolds is currently suing Ms Higgins and her fiance, David Sharaz, for defamation in the Western Australian Supreme Court. That matter is scheduled to go to trial later this year, with the senator vowing to push on with the claim.
Senator Reynolds said she did not wish to make any further comment at this time given her ongoing defamation proceedings against the pair.
“I note as a matter of law that the findings by Justice Lee are not binding on Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz in respect of their defences to my actions in the Supreme Court of WA. I therefore remain committed to fully vindicating my reputation,” she said.
In his judgment, Justice Lee slammed the cover-up allegation pushed by Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz as “objectively short on facts, but long on speculation and internal inconsistencies”.
“Trying to particularise it during the evidence was like trying to grab a column of smoke,” Justice Lee wrote.
He found that there was no evidence that anyone was suggesting to Ms Higgins for her not to proceed in any way contrary to her own judgment as to what was best for her, let alone pressuring or threatening her to do so.
Last edited by Belle on Tue Apr 16, 2024 11:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
jserraglio
- Posts: 11954
- Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 7:06 am
- Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Re: Lehrmann vs Higgins
Sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal?? Whenever this hollowly-ringingBelle wrote: ↑Tue Apr 16, 2024 10:58 pmMore asinine commentary from the giant chip on the shoulder. Infantile, narcissistic comments. As I said, bitterness has a long tail and is very very resilient - especially when there are zero friendships in the real world to temper extremist views. In my experience on music boards all the trolls - all, bar none - were aggrieved, embittered lefties. Most of them very short of cash and skills useful to the economy. You can see the screaming in the graphics, emboldened type, exclamation marks and hyperbolic emotion.
You on the Left tried to do the same thing to Bret Kavanaugh; destroy his reputation on the basis of lies. That's exactly what our left wing Labor government did to Morrison and his government over this matter and there are now legal suits in progress.
The Left can only destroy; building anything is beyond their remit.
has neither an answer nor the intellectual honesty to retract her own intemperate words, she recycles the same set of shopworn ad homs. It’s so predictable it’s double down Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 15 guests