(04-15-2024, 10:44 PM)DJC link Wrote:You must have extraordinary powers of observation to determine people’s intent from a couple of seconds of CCTV footage.

And yet eyewitnesses at the nightclub and security at Parliament House gave evidence that clearly contradicts your assessment of Higgins and Lehrmann’s state of sobriety.

Unless you sat through the entire trial and carefully considered every piece of material evidence and every sentence of testimony from Higgins, Lehrmann and all of the witnesses, you’re not really in a position to dispute Justice Lee’s findings.

Of course you can have an opinion, but it’s not worth much in this particular context.

Quote:  Mr Fairweather recalled a general smell of alcohol but did not think that the visitors were overly affected (by which he meant slurring, falling over, vomiting level drunk) so as to be refused entry (Fairweather (at [29]–[32], [62])). He considered the scale of intoxication to be “very moderate” and not “heavily intoxicated” because otherwise he would have refused entry (T1172.4–27). Mr Fairweather, although an experienced security guard, was not a breathalyser in human form. He said at the time they were “half pissed” (Ex R69). I have no doubt his evidence was given genuinely, but without prolonged examination and complete information as to what had occurred earlier in the evening (and although Mr Lehrmann may only have been “half pissed”), he mistakenly but honestly underestimated the extent of the intoxication of Ms Higgins. Similarly, Ms Anderson realised Ms Higgins was intoxicated after she observed her struggling to get her shoes back on coming through the metal detector (Anderson (at [27]–[28])) and later recorded this observation in her incident report (Ex R67).

(04-16-2024, 09:00 AM)DJC link Wrote:You might need to fabricate some corroborating evidence and set up some eye witnesses first. 

(04-16-2024, 09:30 AM)madbluboy link Wrote:He could take a  picture of a bruise on his leg from another time he got drunk and fell over.

Quote: 

The ex-Liberal staffer was treated at Royal Perth Hospital amid a breakdown in mediation talks in a defamation case being brought against her by her former employer, Senator Linda Reynolds.
Brittany Higgins’ former boss, Senator Linda Reynolds, has spoken out in the wake of the Federal Court’s defamation judgment against Bruce Lehrmann, saying it has finally “set the record straight” on allegations her office engaged in a cover-up.

In his judgment this week, Justice Michael Lee found that, on the balance of probabilities, “Mr Lehrmann raped” Ms Higgins at Parliament House.

Mr Lehrmann had brought the unsuccessful defamation action against Channel Ten and one of its hosts, Lisa Wilkinson.


The judgment also found that an allegation pushed by Ms Higgins and her partner, David Sharaz, claiming there had been a cover-up of the rape allegation, was “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.

Brittany Higgins. Picture: Colin Murty
Brittany Higgins. Picture: Colin Murty
On Tuesday night, Ms Reynolds – who was defence minister at the time of the rape – claimed vindication for both herself and her former chief of staff, Fiona Brown.

“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,” she told The Australian.

“Fiona Brown and I have lost our careers, had our reputations destroyed and have had our health seriously and irreparably compromised.

“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.”

Ms Reynolds is currently suing Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz for defamation in the WA Supreme Court. The matter is expected to go to trial later in the year.

While stressing that she wished to make no further comment, Ms Reynolds noted that “as a matter of law”, Justice Lee’s findings were “not binding on Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz in respect to their defences” in that case.

“I remain committed to fully vindicating my reputation,” the Senator said.

(04-26-2024, 02:25 AM)LP link Wrote:I was talking to an associate about domestic violence, they spend some time volunteering in shelters so they see a lot of the effects up close.

They mentioned the current media calls for stronger penalties are completely misplaced. The problem is that the offenders are not in a stable mental space already. His fear is then that if the penalties are stronger the situation will become like the regions with death penalties in the US, in those regions offenders (insane as they may be) conclude if you are going to do the time then you may as well do the crime. In domestic violence law this could be very bad for victims.

My friend would much rather see the use of monitoring devices for repeat offenders, much like the ankle type trackers used in early release. He said it's very rare that the victims of domestic violence are victims of a first offense. Most of the bad cases turn out to be recidivists. He also said legal papers and orders do nothing, a piece of paper is of no use in defence against a knife, gun or fists of someone who is otherwise not quite right in the head!

(05-04-2024, 01:12 PM)Professer E link Wrote:The manner in which Daicos senior carried on after the goal lacked a bit of class.