Updated Bruce Lehrmann * Justice Lee - "Mr Lehrmann r*ped Ms Higgins."

How long will the jury be out for?

  • Back the same afternoon

    Votes: 12 34.3%
  • One day

    Votes: 12 34.3%
  • Two days

    Votes: 6 17.1%
  • Three to five days

    Votes: 3 8.6%
  • Over a week

    Votes: 2 5.7%

  • Total voters
    35
  • Poll closed .

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #21
Historical Rape Allegation Against Fmr AG Christian Porter
The Alexander Matters matters

Just a reminder, this is the crime board and we need to be aware that there will be victims of crime either watching this thread or engaging in here from time to time. A degree of respect in all discussions is expected.

LINK TO TIMELINE
CJS INQUIRY
FINAL REPORT – BOARD OF INQUIRY – CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Joint media statement – Chief Minister and Attorney-General

LINK TO FEDERAL COURT DEFAMATION PROCEEDINGS
 
Last edited:
A very angry ACT Chief Minister...

Australian journalist Samantha Maiden is the one asking him about 'knobbling'. Reckon if he had something within reach at that time he would have thrown it at her.

But what he is clearly most p$ssed off at is Sofronoff placing his faith in the Australian commentator Janet Albrechtsen instead of honouring his commitment to the ACT government - who engaged him and paid for the Inquiry in the first place.

This scandal is not going away.



Sofronoff has said that he provided copies of his report to two journalists that in his judgement, would not betray his trust and would behave professionally.

In doing so, demonstrates bad judgement.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Sofronoff has said that he provided copies of his report to two journalists that in his judgement, would not betray his trust and would behave professionally.

In doing so, demonstrates bad judgement.
Not just that. It's been revealed he was actually giving private commentaries to a few selected journos throughout the inquiry itself - telling them how he thought things were going to run the following day - to prep them for what was to come.

FMD - not just unethical but absolutely bizarre.

It's like he sees himself as some sort of Cecil B Demille.

 
Last edited:
It's a shit show alright.

'The wrecking ball of the Lehrmann-Higgins case keeps swinging

By Jacqueline Maley

August 7, 2023 — 7.08pm

It’s the case that wrecks the lives of everyone it touches and spawns a seemingly never-ending cascade of legal action; a mushroom cloud of litigation that blooms ever outward.
...
A former boss suing the young woman who says she was r*ped while in her employ – it’s unusual, for sure, although less polite people might call it something else.

Those less-polite people might call this entire matter a s--t-show, and they would be right.'
 
Albretchson today says the leak of the report came from another party and that she not breach the embargo. Given she has been given solid enough information throughout (where Sofronoff has not been involved) then that is very credible to me.

Anyway, why the huff and puff about the leaked report. It was supposed to be made public anyway. Unless, the goal of the ACT Government was to suppress it which raises more questions in of itself.
 
Anyway, why the huff and puff about the leaked report. It was supposed to be made public anyway. Unless, the goal of the ACT Government was to suppress it which raises more questions in of itself.

It's about proper procedure and fairness. Similarly, when the Robodebt findings were handed down it included a sealed section with a list of names on it and recommendations the public hasn't seen.
 
It's about proper procedure and fairness. Similarly, when the Robodebt findings were handed down it included a sealed section with a list of names on it and recommendations the public hasn't seen.
Fairness to who?
Drumgold was given advance notice of the adverse findings against him. And he was allowed to respond to them which he did.

Why was the ACT Government so keen not to release and/or delay the report?
I thought we all wanted transparency.
 
Albretchson today says the leak of the report came from another party and that she not breach the embargo.

Sofronoff himself says he gave a copy of the embargoed report to Albrechtsen.

So you actually believe her claim that managed to get a second, non-embargoed copy of the report after already accepting an embargoed copy from the inquiry itself. And THAT was the report she was quoting from in her leaked stories?

that is very credible to me.


Wait What Reaction GIF by Neesin
 
Sofronoff himself says he gave a copy of the embargoed report to Albrechtsen.

So you actually believe her claim that managed to get a second, non-embargoed copy of the report after already accepting an embargoed copy from the inquiry itself. And THAT was the report she was quoting from in her leaked stories?




Wait What Reaction GIF by Neesin
Well given she has managed to get all sorts of other information throughout then it is pretty obvious to me that she has another contact.
Should be obvious to most people to be honest.

Anyway, if you want to believe there is some sort of giant conspiracy (to achieve what, I don't know) then I will let you be.
 
839 pages.

At a glance, the last 600'ish pages are APPENDICES, Supplementary Submissions etc.

But important to note that there are only TEN recommendations in the report. And the majority of these relate to the AFP - referred to as the ACTP (ACT Police) - protocols in the report. (These were not referenced in the Albrechtsen leaks from the report).

What is staggering about these is that they are recommendations relating to how the AFP handles allegations and criminal investigations that you would think would surely already be in place. That they are not is simply staggering imho and explains both the extraordinary low level of successful sexual assault prosecutions in the ACT cf other jurisdictions; and how the leaking of private information from Ms Higgins phone provided to the AFP so readily found their way into Murdoch newspaper reports.

For example:

From Recommendation 1:

I recommend that the ACTP implement training to ensure a consistent understanding among police officers about the threshold to charge and how it should be applied to evidence gathered during an investigation. This training should be provided periodically.

From Recommendation 3:

I recommend that the ACTP devise and implement governance material relating to the requirements in Parts 4.3 and 4.4 of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. The governance material should outline how counselling notes must be stored within ACTP and when counselling notes can be disclosed. I recommend that the ACTP implement training to all officers on the governance material and that this training should be provided periodically.

From Recommendation 4:

I recommend that the ACTP implement refresher training to all officers, including senior officers, about the adjudication process and its purpose. This training should be provided periodically.

From Recommendation 5:

I recommend that consideration be given by the government, in consultation with criminal justice agencies, to address: (a) whether there should be a prohibition against disclosure of a protected confidences at the investigation stage of the criminal process; (b) where leave to disclose a protected confidence has not been obtained, and a protected confidence comes into the possession of a prosecutor or defence lawyer, whether there should be a prohibition against anyone reading a protected confidence; and (c) whether there should be a statutory prohibition against disclosure of protected confidences by any person who has been given lawful access to such material without the leave of the court.


And for the benefit of posters here who continually attacked the role of the ACT Victims of Crime Commissioner (Heidi Yates) - Sofronoff not only states that she did her job in full compliance with the legislation but has recommended that the ACT Victim of Crime legislation be amended to make explicit the role played by the Commissioner in ALL stages of the investigative process:

From Recommendation 2:

I recommend that consideration be given by policy makers and subject matter experts to amending section 16A(3) and (4) of the Victims of Crime Act. Section 16A(3) should include not just ‘the investigation’ but also ‘the matter generally’. Section 16A(4) should be amended as follows: change in the status of an investigation, for an offence, includes when police decide to– (a) a person being charged charge a person with the offence; or (b) issue a warrant being issued for the arrest of a person accused of committing the offence.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

View attachment 1767988


'Walter Sofronoff KC will address the handling of allegations made by Brittany Higgins against Bruce Lehrmann and issues raised.'

Notice the presumptive way that sentence is framed? Event obviously organised before the events of the past week.

'Issues raised' LOL. Just a guess but reckon Sofronoff's his handling of the reporting process and giving an advance copy to Australian chief muck raker Janet Albrechtsen might be one of those 'issues raised'.

Queensland media club. Wonder if events tomorrow in Toowoomba will get a mention.
 
Last edited:
Well given she has managed to get all sorts of other information throughout then it is pretty obvious to me that she has another contact.
Should be obvious to most people to be honest.

Anyway, if you want to believe there is some sort of giant conspiracy (to achieve what, I don't know) then I will let you be.

Yeah it’s not like weird stuff has gone on throughout this entire debacle.

Just a series of coincidences. Totally normal.
 
Well given she has managed to get all sorts of other information throughout then it is pretty obvious to me that she has another contact.
Should be obvious to most people to be honest.

Anyway, if you want to believe there is some sort of giant conspiracy (to achieve what, I don't know) then I will let you be.

The conspiracy theory is a different issue to the Report.
 
Albrechtsen is calling Sofronoff a liar?
When she leaked selected details of the Sofronoff report last week - Albrechtsen failed to mention that she herself had an embargoed copy of the report handed to her by Sofronoff. She merely referred to a 'source'

Reckon she did not think Sofronoff himself would out himself as having provided her with an embargoed copy of the report just hours before she leaked excerpts of it en masse on the Australian website.

Her subsequent claim that she did not get her info from the report that was given to her and was sitting in her office as she typed her story but instead got it from 'another source' just lacks any credibility at all. (except among the regular consumers of the Murdoch Kool Aid™ of course).
 
No - she is saying that the report was leaked to her from another party. Which, given that she has had the inside running throughout is no real surprise.

Sofronoff should run a tighter ship than that imo.

I wouldn't be the first to ask with the history, if Albrechtsen might have access to a stream of illegally hacked material. There should be an investigation imo.
 
When she leaked selected details of the Sofronoff report last week - Albrechtsen failed to mention that she herself had an embargoed copy of the report handed to her by Sofronoff. She merely referred to a 'source'

Reckon she did not think Sofronoff himself would out himself as having provided her with an embargoed copy of the report just hours before she leaked excerpts of it en masse on the Australian website.

Her subsequent claim that she did not get her info from the report that was given to her and was sitting in her office as she typed her story but instead got it from 'another source' just lacks any credibility at all. (except among the regular consumers of the Murdoch Kool Aid™ of course).
Open the curtains & let the sun shine in .... & you run the Kool Aid line :'(
 
When she leaked selected details of the Sofronoff report last week - Albrechtsen failed to mention that she herself had an embargoed copy of the report handed to her by Sofronoff. She merely referred to a 'source'

Reckon she did not think Sofronoff himself would out himself as having provided her with an embargoed copy of the report just hours before she leaked excerpts of it en masse on the Australian website.

Her subsequent claim that she did not get her info from the report that was given to her and was sitting in her office as she typed her story but instead got it from 'another source' just lacks any credibility at all. (except among the regular consumers of the Murdoch Kool Aid™ of course).
How does it lack any credibility?
She has been getting leaked documents on the whole saga throughout. Why would this be any different?

How many times does she need to provide examples of this before you remove your head out of the sand. It should be glaringly obvious to anyone with an interest in the matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top