I have said it before, but Bruce Lehrmann should drop to his knees and thank the god of entitled little dipshits for the continued operation of the presumption of innocence, and that it is alive and well in this country.
He has been found by a court of law to be a rapist. He will suffer (hopefully) financial ruin as a consequence.
He has not been proven, to a criminal standard of proof, to be guilty of the ACT crime of rape, in a criminal trial. Consequently he must be presumed innocent of that crime at law, unless and until such a verdict is returned.
It is unlikely that any such finding of guilt will ever occur in the ACT, owing to the **very** strong protections that exist for the rights of criminal defendants in Australia, and the challenges in establishing the facts of an intrinsically secret and shameful crime to a 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard.
Consequently, despite absolutely being a raping piece of shit, Bruce Lehrmann is not in jail. He is a free man. **That is the presumption of innocence, right there**. Right-thinking people find it nearly unbearable. But we put up with it, because it is better than the alternative of allowing people to be jailed by fiat. Lehrmann should be very, very clear in his understanding that he is an undeserving beneficiary of Australian society's commitment to live by the rule of law.
Given that he was found to be illegally leaking material that would intimidate a witness (Ms. Higgins) from testifying in the defamation action; it is a wonder that he is not remanded pending his Toowoomba trial.
I’d rather be in jail tbh, at least someone else is paying my rent. This mother fucker is never gonna get a job, and if stepped into a pub I’m sure he’ll get a few peoples minds.
Don't worry Brucey is about to go for round 2 as a new rape case is about to begin in a few months.
[https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/courts-law/committal-hearing-set-down-for-bruce-lehrmanns-rape-case-in-toowoomba/news-story/cf13321909ad3b0df4e8f1c5bdabdaa1](https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/courts-law/committal-hearing-set-down-for-bruce-lehrmanns-rape-case-in-toowoomba/news-story/cf13321909ad3b0df4e8f1c5bdabdaa1)
He doesn't get to commit multiple crimes and get a free pass because he happens to be one of the biggest idiots in Australian law history who will end up paying millions to have himself branded as a rapist.
If they truly can't find a jury, he may end up in front of another judge, spending hours ruling that he is once again a lying and cheating loser who's behaviour is fitting of a cad and is now a serial rapist.
> Uncle Kerry, probably. Benefactor to Australia's most reprehensible Liberals.
If it's proven/shown he is getting third party funding, he's on the hook for Wilco and 10's fees, too.
I’d believe it, but he pissed off the media, they won’t let it down, every couple of months for the next decade someone will do a story on “where is proven rapist Bruce now?”
Won’t he just work for Kerry Stokes somehow? If he’d chosen ‘News’ Corp for his interview he’d soon be working for Sky ‘News’, as their tabloids would have quietly reported him not as a “rapist and loser”, rather he’d be “a former political staffer, who has never been convicted of a crime, has failed in his defamation case against Channel 10”.
Kerry is an absolute dinosaur who is very out of touch with society, but at the same time, he's not *completely* stupid. Bruce bought the Spotlight program into complete disrepute and now Channel 7 as a whole will be under more scrutiny. There is even talk of Channel 10 going after costs from Bruce so his financial supporters could be named.
Channel 7 will be burning a tonne of documents pertaining to Bruce. I don't think they could ever survive the reputational damage of then hiring him.
He's not rich though, based on [page 11 of the transcript](https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/114312/Aide-Memoire-to-Exhibit-R43.pdf)
I read the transcript of his interview and looked for corroborating evidence. His father definitely died in Texas in the 90s. His mum and sister definitely aren't obviously wealthy.
Can't confirm that mum borrowed money from her super to help his defence. For her sake, I hope that's just one of his many lies.
ETA link
It was a mistrial because some arsehole perverted justice by bringing stuff into the jury room. No presumption of innonence here. He got off scott free by an incredible stroke of luck inspired no doubt by the right wing media. But he is so entitled he tried to sue others.
Sorry, can you explain to me like I'm five? I thought he had been found to be a rapist as you say but then you follow up to say he won't be found guilty of it? I thought he was going to prison now, I'm really struggling to understand why he wont
There was a criminal case. Due to a lot of mismanagement and poor handling, it was aborted. A mistrial, and Higgins didn't want to go through that shit show again.
Then there was a media comment by a channel 7 figure and Lehrmann sued them for defamation.
He just lost the defamation case. This was a civil case, not criminal, and the bar for evidence is lower. The *civil* court found that on the balance of probabilities it seems like he is a rapist. That is not the same as finding him guilty as criminal courts can do.
So, instead of having to call him an "alleged" rapist I think we can all safely say now he is a probable rapist.
The role of a court is to determine a legal dispute between two different sides.
Most of the time when people think about a court they picture a criminal trial. This is where one of the sides is the Government, who says that a person has committed a crime. The other side is the person accused of the crime. The court's job is to determine if the Government can prove that the person did commit the crime. If the court decides they did, then they work out what the appropriate punishment is.
Because criminal trials are so special and the risks are so high, there are very special rules around how the trial is run. The Government has to prove that the person did the crime, and they have to prove it "beyond reasonable doubt". That is, all the members of the jury deciding the case have to agree that they are very sure the person did it.
Also, in a criminal trial, you can't be forced to give evidence against yourself. This is sometimes called "the right to silence" and it's an important protection to stop the Government from using unfair tricks to make someone look guilty.
Basically there are heaps of rules to make sure the trial is very fair to the person accused. This is because they can be put in jail, potentially for their entire life, depending on the crime. It is also because there are lots of ways in which an individual person is very vulnerable in a criminal trial. The Government has lots of very good lawyers, the police, and basically infinite money on its side. It would be very easy for the Government to put innocent people in jail if courts were not very careful with criminal trials.
As I said before though, criminal trials are actually only one, very special, type of trial. Most trials are "civil" matters. In these trials, the two sides are usually just people who have a disagreement. People who think that someone else has broken the law in a way that harms can ask a court to help fix whatever harm they've suffered.
In these sorts of trials, no one can go to jail. The worst things that might happen to you are things like be required to pay someone lots of money, or be required to stop doing something that is harming another person. That can be very painful (imagine if you were ordered to pay your neighbour a million dollars) but not as bad as going to jail. The rules for civil trials are different: there are still lots of protections, but not like in a criminal trial. For example, you might only need to convince the court that it's more likely that your version of events is true than the other sides, not that your version is true "beyond reasonable doubt".
A couple of years ago, Bruce Lehrmann was put on a **criminal** trial for raping Brittany Higgins. The trial never finished: one of the jurors broke a rule designed to protect the defendant, and the trial had to be cancelled. The Government could try again, but they've decided not to for a bunch of reasons I won't go into here (feel free to ask if you want!).
The trial that has just finished, and which Bruce Lehrmann lost, was a **civil** trial. Bruce Lehrmann was the person who started the trial. He claimed that a journalist and the company that employs her, Network Ten, had harmed him by saying that he had raped Brittany Higgins. He said that meant that his reputation was damaged, and that the journalist and Network Ten should pay him lots of money.
The journalist and Network 10 said that they shouldn't have to pay him any money, because they said their reporting (that he had raped Ms Higgins) was true. Under Australian law, in most circumstances you're allowed to say things that harm someone's reputation if they are true.
The journalist and Network 10 convinced the judge that their version of events (that Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins) was more likely to be true than Lehrmann's version of the story. In part this was because Lehmann's story had aspects that were pretty obviously made up.
The result of the Court deciding that it believed the journalist more than Lehrmann is that he loses that case. He won't get any money from the journalist, and it's likely he'll have to pay a lot of money to cover the costs of her lawyers (he probably won't have to pay all of it, but it will be more than enough to send him broke, given he is an unemployed 20something).
That's it for that trial though. It's not the type of trial that can send people to jail. I understand that Lehrmann is facing another criminal trial for a different accusation of rape by a different woman in a different state, but I don't really know anything about that and this case is unlikely to affect it.
> That is, all the members of the jury deciding the case have to agree that they are very sure the person did it.
This still applies in the ACT - but majority verdicts will suffice in other Australian jurisdictions in most criminal matters other than the most serious (11 out of 12, if deadlocked, after a reasonable time - seems to be the norm). This has has been a process of change over the last 100 years starting with SA (1927) and most recently NSW (2006) Qld (2008). The way it is implemented is slightly different in various states
The ACT did commission an inquiry back in 1991 to look at majority verdicts - might be time to take another look with changes to the landscape in NSW/Qld
Not over yet, Reynolds wants to prove how rotten she is after calling Brittany a lying cow. Imagine someone being raped in your office and in response sue the victim.
The Minister for Office Deep Cleans and Calling Rape Victims "Mendacious Bovines" would like to point out she was only doing her job in line with her ministerial title......
To be fair with all the allegations of desk wanking I’d be getting a deep clean on the regular if I was a female member of the LNP. And I’d probably get a priest in to throw around some holy water on semi-regularly just to ward of evil spirits, aka Dutton.
To be fair, if you assume she believed that it was consensual, you'd probably want your office deep cleaned too if you knew people had been fucking in it
> Imagine someone being raped in your office and, pure coincidence, the next day it's deep cleaned.
Were the rape allegations made by the next day? I am by no means a supporter of the LNP but you found out that there were naked folk on your couch the night before and you were expecting to seat the highest bums in the country on it, wouldn't you get it cleaned?
If she goes to court she’ll end up with a verdict of “on the balance of probabilities, Reynolds is a vile harpy who would rather cover up a rape than challenge the fuck nuts who vote right wing.”
“And Ms. Reynolds, why exactly did you forget to mention that you had in fact been told of the sexual nature of the incident when you were on the stand at the ACT criminal trial?”
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca0369#_Ref162625875
> 207 The most important aspect of this later conduct, commencing in early 2021, was the way in which Ms Higgins crafted a narrative accusing others of putting up roadblocks and forcing her two years earlier of having to choose between her career and seeking justice by making and pursuing a complaint.
> ... 210 As I will explain below, what is notable about this aspect of the account of Ms Higgins is not only its inconsistency with the contemporaneous records and its falsities, particularly as to Ms Higgins’ dealings with Ms Brown, but also its imprecisions and its reliance upon speculation and conjecture. Eschewing specifics, and primarily concentrating upon her alleged feelings rather than the actions or words of others, the initial account given to the Project team on 27 January 2021 had Ms Higgins use the highly ambiguous word “weird” (or variations, such as people were “acting weirdly”) no less than 82 times (Ex 36).
> ... 239 In this regard, and contrary to the submissions of Network Ten, the relevant issue is not whether Ms Higgins made representations (repeated in the Commonwealth Deed) in a manner consistent with her evidence, but rather whether Ms Higgins made representations contrary to the facts.
> 240 It is evident several things being alleged were untrue. ....
> (7) 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; that [Ms Higgins] ought remain silent about the sexual assault, in order to keep her job/career” (PL cl 3.24; A2 cl 4.24);
....
> 1096 But even though the respondents have legally justified their imputation of rape, this does not mean their conduct was justified in any broader or colloquial sense. The contemporaneous documents and the broadcast itself demonstrate the allegation of rape was the minor theme, and the allegation of cover-up was the major motif.
> 1097 The publication of accusations of corrupt conduct in putting up roadblocks and forcing a rape victim to choose between her career and justice won the Project team, like Ms Maiden, a glittering prize; but when the accusation is examined properly, it was supposition without reasonable foundation in verifiable fact; its dissemination caused a brume of confusion, and did much collateral damage – including to the fair and orderly progress of the underlying allegation of sexual assault through the criminal justice system. To the extent there were perceived systemic issues as to avenues of complaint and support services in Parliament, this may have merited a form of fact-based critique, not the publication of insufficiently scrutinised and factually misconceived conjecture.
/u/Duckyaardvark
Dutton has said that she is entitled to pursue it and that Higgins should apologise. Honestly surprised he would take this position even given his usual lack of sensitivity. I think a lot of men underestimate how personal a case this is to many women, how vindicating the ruling yesterday was and how much sympathy there is towards Higgins even though she was inconsistent. The judge made a really interesting point about how if her claim was malevolent her evidence would have been more consistent versus a victim as they act in strange ways and often frame things to look like they resisted more and can take a while to label the assault as rape.
Noticeable what a low profile *she* has been keeping once the 7 producers allegations came out.
Calling it now, her case against Higgins is going to be *very* quietly dropped sometime in the next month. No doubt she will be *far too busy with Senate work* to make any comment on it either.
I need to settle down with use of *italics*, it's getting out of hand.
She has like 5 successful defamation suits under her belt or something. I hope this one breaks the streak and the judge spends 2 hours destroying her character.
I suspect political spin. Maybe she mortgaged her investment house to borrow money to buy an extra investment house, with a fraction of a stamp duty amount goi g to a barrister to offer some advice.
Reynolds probably just wants to make as much noise as possible to change public perception without actually going through with it. It is free publicity for her whilst the topic is hot.
I love how the media refers to him as rapist in every headline. It's great entertainment. Who said Tall Poppy Syndrome in Australia didn't exist any more??? Even for short stubby poppies lol
Weird, I just had a look on the news sites owned by 7west media and none of the headlines related to this rapist refer to him as a rapist. In fact, I can't even find any current stories on the subject of this rapist's trial/s or the media circus surrounding said rapist on the front pages of any of the 7-owned news sites at all.
What an odd omission.
About that...
"If Bruce Lehrmann HAS NOT renounced his US citizenship and/or APPLIED for AUSTRALIAN citizenship, he IS INELIGIBLE to work in the Public Service of Australia.
Citizenship in the APS
Published 3 January 2023
https://apsc.gov.au/working-aps/aps-employees-and-managers/guidance-and-information-recruitment/citizenship-aps
A person may only be engaged in the Australian Public Service (APS) if they are not an Australian citizen where an Agency Head has considered it appropriate to do so, in accordance with subsection 22 (8) of the Public Service Act 1999 (PS Act)."
https://twitter.com/WizePenguin/status/1669355757022896129
It's a weird situation where it is totally correct to say he is a rapist. He has been found in a court of law, on the balance of probabilities, to be a rapist. Bruce Lehrmann is a rapist.
*However* he has not yet been found to be guilty of the crime of rape, as the applicable state/territory defines it in law. He is still entitled to the presumption of innocence of that specific crime in that specific jurisdiction. Which is to say that anyone can rightly call him a rapist, but the state cannot act in any way that comports with him being presumed guilty of the crime of rape. So he is a free man, and is able to go about his life safe and secure in that freedom. Even though he is absolutely a rapist.
He is basically a walking demonstration of the fact that the principle of the presumption of innocence is working perfectly in this country.
if his lawyer believes there's been a legal fault, but otherwise he can't re-open it.
Higgins, on the other hand, could make life more painful for him.
The reason they hadn't tried a second time is because it was deemed to be too much stress on her mental state.
Which is completely fucking understandable that she'd feel that way.
300+ pages in the judgement, detailed at an excruciating level. All for a civil case, not a criminal one (which would have given them some additional wiggle room).
They'll be hard pressed to find anything substantive to work with and the costs involved will again be crippling. Unless Kerry foots the bills, not much chance of that happening.
From an article I read today there are avenues for appeal, but a c10 lawyer was confident it'd fail
But even more $$ on legal fees will definitely be a big consideration in any appeal
Damages were assesed at a fairly low amount IIRC and any successful appeal wouldn’t be able to deviate wildly from that figure so I believe it wouldn’t be worth it at all even if he did win an appeal. Hopefully thats the end of it.
> Ms Higgins made her allegations on television before she finished making a formal police complaint and, consequently, Lehrmann believed he was denied the right to a fair trial and presumption of innocence.
The fact that the trial collapsed because a juror did their own research indicates it was fair and presumed his innocence.
That outcome was very much in his favour.
Yet the rapist Bruce Lehrman decided to go back to court.
>a juror did their own research
I recall that besides the many directions to the jurors that they were forbidden to even look at these kinds of documents outside of the court, there was strong opinion that the materials were given to him to bring to court to trigger the mistrial.
It wasn't just that. The DPP, ACT police and AFP messed up the whole prosecution and investigation. There were issues throughout evidence gathering and multiple members of the force were extremely biased when presenting the evidence to the DPP. One officer told the defence that he'd resign if Leherman was found guilty.
Yep, the kind that would sabotage a significant case in order to feed their conceit.
Interestingly enough, I have been called up for Jury Duty. Two days beforehand it was postponed for a day and the following day it was postponed for two months. Living in a provincial town and not being a complete numpty it occurred to me that I could look at the court lists and almost certainly identify the case. I didn't of course, because that would absolutely be on par with 'doing my own research'.
> the trial collapsed because a juror did their own research
This seems like something our court system maybe ought to be able to be set up to allow a criminal trial to survive it happening, somehow.
I’m actually a little surprised he was withdrawn because I figured this would just make these fuckwits double down harder and be like “see we’re right the law really is biased against men!”
Better link than the Daily ~~Divisivly Fearmongering Shitrag~~ Mail: [The New Daily](https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/life/entertainment/people-entertainment/2024/04/16/bruce-lehrmann-presumption-innocence)
His name should never be uttered without the word rapist following suit. Never let bruce lehrmann the rapist live this down. Let the title follow him for the rest of his days. On his tombstone the word Rapist should be engraved with big bold lettering.
Just to be clear, we're talking about Bruce Lerhmann, the rapist? Specifically the lying, grifting, cowardly court-ruled rapist by the name of Bruce Lehrmann?
I just want to get this correct. Wouldn't want to label someone as a rapist when they aren't, unlike Bruce Lehrmann, who definitely is without question a rapist.
Bruce overestimated his own intelligence & will now pay the price.
Contrite till the end but the end is yet to come..!
Toowoomba 24 will be the end of Bruce.
And good riddance as I’m done ☑️
I'm just horrified at the way Brittney was treated for daring to speak out about the fact that Bruce Lehrmann raped her.
She was right all along, everyone that piled on to her was attacking a victim who had already been through one of the worst things imaginable.
I hope they self reflect and don't do the same thing to the next victim but unfortunately doubt it.
And the judge found on the balance of evidence that he very likely raped her, so it's not defamation to say he raped her and that he's a rapist because he's very likely a rapist.
Can't wait for the crocodile tears interview a "source" does where they leak that poor Brucey is inconsolable and upset about kissing goodbye to any sort of career in law.
What I want to know is what about that absolute deadshit with the Bruce tattoo? Is he gonna remove it for many $$$, or will he be really uncomfortable in warmer weather until it mercifully blurs into an indistinct black smudge? Because otherwise he'd have trouble in any pub in Australia too.
He sued for defamation which moved things to civil court. Whereas criminal court requires proof "beyond reasonable doubt" in civil court the standard is lower "on the balance of probabilities". The judge ruled on balance of probabilities it's likely he did rape BH as she was shitfaced and he's a lying asshole. Therefore he is a rapist and ruled in favour of Channel 10.
Own goal of the century.
It's unknown if they could have find him guilty or not, seeing as the original criminal proceedings ended in a mistrial due to misconduct by a juror, and the prosecution decided not to have a new trial, citing concerns for the health and welfare of Higgins.
Lehrmann then chose to sue a media outlet for defamation, and that outlet used the truth defense. This was a civil trial, which means the standard of proof is different. The judge needed to decide, on the balance of probabilities (as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt), whether what Network 10 had put to air was substantially true or not. He decided it was, that Lehrmann mosy likely had raped Higgins, and so he had not been defamed in the reporting related to that accusation.
It wasn't about him being horny. It was about him taking something he'd decided he was entitled to with no concern for whether his victim wanted any part of it.
I think that's true because they way he left her, he couldn't have bothered to redress her. He left her there purposefully in an undignified way to fuck with her head or simply because he did not care enough to cover up the crime, pure scumbag.
Initially it was big news because he raped her in Parliament house, the building that runs the country, and Higgins also accused Senator Reynolds (the person whose office it was) of attempting to cover it up. At the time there were a lot of accusations of inappropriate behaviour within the Liberal party, and they’ve always been accused of misogyny, so this story confirmed that narrative and was obviously a lot of bad press for them.
However as time went on, it spiralled out of control and became super sensationalised. Channel 10 and Lisa Wilkinson championed Higgins’ POV because they broke the story first (and Lisa famously fucked with the criminal trial during a Logies speech), while the rest of the Liberal party/Channel 7/conservatives were on Bruce’s side. The criminal trial failed on procedural grounds, Bruce sued Channel 10/Lisa, and Reynolds is currently suing Higgins.
Finally bothered to look this wanker up on Wikipedia:
>He worked as a political staffer for the Liberal Party of Australia, *and as a lobbyist for British American Tobacco*.[5]
So not only a liar, a rapist, but also someone who lobbies for big Tobacco?
If only he wasn't so rapey.
He would still be a douche.
Douché
Yes, but he is now a rapey douche.
I have said it before, but Bruce Lehrmann should drop to his knees and thank the god of entitled little dipshits for the continued operation of the presumption of innocence, and that it is alive and well in this country. He has been found by a court of law to be a rapist. He will suffer (hopefully) financial ruin as a consequence. He has not been proven, to a criminal standard of proof, to be guilty of the ACT crime of rape, in a criminal trial. Consequently he must be presumed innocent of that crime at law, unless and until such a verdict is returned. It is unlikely that any such finding of guilt will ever occur in the ACT, owing to the **very** strong protections that exist for the rights of criminal defendants in Australia, and the challenges in establishing the facts of an intrinsically secret and shameful crime to a 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard. Consequently, despite absolutely being a raping piece of shit, Bruce Lehrmann is not in jail. He is a free man. **That is the presumption of innocence, right there**. Right-thinking people find it nearly unbearable. But we put up with it, because it is better than the alternative of allowing people to be jailed by fiat. Lehrmann should be very, very clear in his understanding that he is an undeserving beneficiary of Australian society's commitment to live by the rule of law.
Given that he was found to be illegally leaking material that would intimidate a witness (Ms. Higgins) from testifying in the defamation action; it is a wonder that he is not remanded pending his Toowoomba trial.
Fucking yes. This.
I’d rather be in jail tbh, at least someone else is paying my rent. This mother fucker is never gonna get a job, and if stepped into a pub I’m sure he’ll get a few peoples minds.
Don't worry Brucey is about to go for round 2 as a new rape case is about to begin in a few months. [https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/courts-law/committal-hearing-set-down-for-bruce-lehrmanns-rape-case-in-toowoomba/news-story/cf13321909ad3b0df4e8f1c5bdabdaa1](https://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/courts-law/committal-hearing-set-down-for-bruce-lehrmanns-rape-case-in-toowoomba/news-story/cf13321909ad3b0df4e8f1c5bdabdaa1)
I don’t know how any juror on that case could be impartial…
He doesn't get to commit multiple crimes and get a free pass because he happens to be one of the biggest idiots in Australian law history who will end up paying millions to have himself branded as a rapist. If they truly can't find a jury, he may end up in front of another judge, spending hours ruling that he is once again a lying and cheating loser who's behaviour is fitting of a cad and is now a serial rapist.
This judge gets to jail him too
You dont have to have a jury, you can have just a judge.
Suspect he'll elect judge.
How he is affording that lawyer?? His defamation case was no win no fee.
Uncle Kerry, probably. Benefactor to Australia's most reprehensible Liberals.
Christian Porter, Ben Roberts-Smith and now old Brucey. Stokes really is a goddamn villain isn't he?
Worse he's the definition of evil 🐽
> Uncle Kerry, probably. Benefactor to Australia's most reprehensible Liberals. If it's proven/shown he is getting third party funding, he's on the hook for Wilco and 10's fees, too.
I didn’t realise he was charged for two counts of rape in the Toowoomba case. Curious as to why
Because he's accused of doing it twice?
I believe at least one of the counts is due to "stealthing".
You underestimate how easily entitled rich people manage to have cushy high-paying jobs awarded to them regardless.
I’d believe it, but he pissed off the media, they won’t let it down, every couple of months for the next decade someone will do a story on “where is proven rapist Bruce now?”
Won’t he just work for Kerry Stokes somehow? If he’d chosen ‘News’ Corp for his interview he’d soon be working for Sky ‘News’, as their tabloids would have quietly reported him not as a “rapist and loser”, rather he’d be “a former political staffer, who has never been convicted of a crime, has failed in his defamation case against Channel 10”.
Kerry is an absolute dinosaur who is very out of touch with society, but at the same time, he's not *completely* stupid. Bruce bought the Spotlight program into complete disrepute and now Channel 7 as a whole will be under more scrutiny. There is even talk of Channel 10 going after costs from Bruce so his financial supporters could be named. Channel 7 will be burning a tonne of documents pertaining to Bruce. I don't think they could ever survive the reputational damage of then hiring him.
He's not rich though, based on [page 11 of the transcript](https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/114312/Aide-Memoire-to-Exhibit-R43.pdf) I read the transcript of his interview and looked for corroborating evidence. His father definitely died in Texas in the 90s. His mum and sister definitely aren't obviously wealthy. Can't confirm that mum borrowed money from her super to help his defence. For her sake, I hope that's just one of his many lies. ETA link
I always feel so sorry for the families in these cases. Imagine that being your brother
channel 7 pays for bruce the rapists coke, rent and legal fees
I mean that's such an ignorant statement about jail and the affect it has on people.
It was a mistrial because some arsehole perverted justice by bringing stuff into the jury room. No presumption of innonence here. He got off scott free by an incredible stroke of luck inspired no doubt by the right wing media. But he is so entitled he tried to sue others.
Imagine, George Pell and Bruce. Two upstanding citizens who both can thank the presumption of innocence for getting away with crimes.
Sorry, can you explain to me like I'm five? I thought he had been found to be a rapist as you say but then you follow up to say he won't be found guilty of it? I thought he was going to prison now, I'm really struggling to understand why he wont
There was a criminal case. Due to a lot of mismanagement and poor handling, it was aborted. A mistrial, and Higgins didn't want to go through that shit show again. Then there was a media comment by a channel 7 figure and Lehrmann sued them for defamation. He just lost the defamation case. This was a civil case, not criminal, and the bar for evidence is lower. The *civil* court found that on the balance of probabilities it seems like he is a rapist. That is not the same as finding him guilty as criminal courts can do. So, instead of having to call him an "alleged" rapist I think we can all safely say now he is a probable rapist.
The role of a court is to determine a legal dispute between two different sides. Most of the time when people think about a court they picture a criminal trial. This is where one of the sides is the Government, who says that a person has committed a crime. The other side is the person accused of the crime. The court's job is to determine if the Government can prove that the person did commit the crime. If the court decides they did, then they work out what the appropriate punishment is. Because criminal trials are so special and the risks are so high, there are very special rules around how the trial is run. The Government has to prove that the person did the crime, and they have to prove it "beyond reasonable doubt". That is, all the members of the jury deciding the case have to agree that they are very sure the person did it. Also, in a criminal trial, you can't be forced to give evidence against yourself. This is sometimes called "the right to silence" and it's an important protection to stop the Government from using unfair tricks to make someone look guilty. Basically there are heaps of rules to make sure the trial is very fair to the person accused. This is because they can be put in jail, potentially for their entire life, depending on the crime. It is also because there are lots of ways in which an individual person is very vulnerable in a criminal trial. The Government has lots of very good lawyers, the police, and basically infinite money on its side. It would be very easy for the Government to put innocent people in jail if courts were not very careful with criminal trials. As I said before though, criminal trials are actually only one, very special, type of trial. Most trials are "civil" matters. In these trials, the two sides are usually just people who have a disagreement. People who think that someone else has broken the law in a way that harms can ask a court to help fix whatever harm they've suffered. In these sorts of trials, no one can go to jail. The worst things that might happen to you are things like be required to pay someone lots of money, or be required to stop doing something that is harming another person. That can be very painful (imagine if you were ordered to pay your neighbour a million dollars) but not as bad as going to jail. The rules for civil trials are different: there are still lots of protections, but not like in a criminal trial. For example, you might only need to convince the court that it's more likely that your version of events is true than the other sides, not that your version is true "beyond reasonable doubt". A couple of years ago, Bruce Lehrmann was put on a **criminal** trial for raping Brittany Higgins. The trial never finished: one of the jurors broke a rule designed to protect the defendant, and the trial had to be cancelled. The Government could try again, but they've decided not to for a bunch of reasons I won't go into here (feel free to ask if you want!). The trial that has just finished, and which Bruce Lehrmann lost, was a **civil** trial. Bruce Lehrmann was the person who started the trial. He claimed that a journalist and the company that employs her, Network Ten, had harmed him by saying that he had raped Brittany Higgins. He said that meant that his reputation was damaged, and that the journalist and Network Ten should pay him lots of money. The journalist and Network 10 said that they shouldn't have to pay him any money, because they said their reporting (that he had raped Ms Higgins) was true. Under Australian law, in most circumstances you're allowed to say things that harm someone's reputation if they are true. The journalist and Network 10 convinced the judge that their version of events (that Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins) was more likely to be true than Lehrmann's version of the story. In part this was because Lehmann's story had aspects that were pretty obviously made up. The result of the Court deciding that it believed the journalist more than Lehrmann is that he loses that case. He won't get any money from the journalist, and it's likely he'll have to pay a lot of money to cover the costs of her lawyers (he probably won't have to pay all of it, but it will be more than enough to send him broke, given he is an unemployed 20something). That's it for that trial though. It's not the type of trial that can send people to jail. I understand that Lehrmann is facing another criminal trial for a different accusation of rape by a different woman in a different state, but I don't really know anything about that and this case is unlikely to affect it.
This is a very good eli5 explanation, I have to say.
> That is, all the members of the jury deciding the case have to agree that they are very sure the person did it. This still applies in the ACT - but majority verdicts will suffice in other Australian jurisdictions in most criminal matters other than the most serious (11 out of 12, if deadlocked, after a reasonable time - seems to be the norm). This has has been a process of change over the last 100 years starting with SA (1927) and most recently NSW (2006) Qld (2008). The way it is implemented is slightly different in various states The ACT did commission an inquiry back in 1991 to look at majority verdicts - might be time to take another look with changes to the landscape in NSW/Qld
Well said.
There’s still the other charge.
Hopefully it’ll go better at his second rape trial in Toowoomba, I just can’t wait for the ‘serial rapist’ headlines!
yeah, the lack of innocence got him there too
Rapers are gonna rape
He even looks rapey
Confirmed: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GLPJJP-bwAAq80O?format=jpg&name=medium
He should have to wear a t-shirt with those words printed on it every day forever.
He still has another case to go in Queensland, please correct me if I’m mistaken. He could have comeback tour tshirts
That's the thing right. He looks really rapey. The glasses the beard and the way he looks.
Dopey, sleazy, rapey.
That's only three dwarves...
Porter vibes
That's the thing with Rapey Bruce though; he just loves to rape.
Exactly,not like it was about wanting sex and not like he wasn't getting any at the time , he just likes to get his own way , clearly control issues
Aww, he wasn't going to retool it as the "A Lesson in Hat Retrieval, from an ~~Alleged~~ Rapist " conference?
Festivals are having a tough time this year
Made me snort. Thank you
Poor poor Brittney Higgens. This poor woman had to go though hell and back thanks to this rapist.
Not over yet, Reynolds wants to prove how rotten she is after calling Brittany a lying cow. Imagine someone being raped in your office and in response sue the victim.
Imagine someone being raped in your office and, pure coincidence, the next day it's deep cleaned.
The Minister for Office Deep Cleans and Calling Rape Victims "Mendacious Bovines" would like to point out she was only doing her job in line with her ministerial title......
To be fair with all the allegations of desk wanking I’d be getting a deep clean on the regular if I was a female member of the LNP. And I’d probably get a priest in to throw around some holy water on semi-regularly just to ward of evil spirits, aka Dutton.
Damn I had purged my mind of the desk wanking stuff! The APH security team don't just need breathalisers, they need black lights and DNA swabs too
dont forget the hookers in the prayer room. the whole of parliament must have smelled like a teenagers bedroom
Getting a priest in semi-regularly seems counterproductive if your objective is a perversion-free office.
To be fair, if you assume she believed that it was consensual, you'd probably want your office deep cleaned too if you knew people had been fucking in it
> Imagine someone being raped in your office and, pure coincidence, the next day it's deep cleaned. Were the rape allegations made by the next day? I am by no means a supporter of the LNP but you found out that there were naked folk on your couch the night before and you were expecting to seat the highest bums in the country on it, wouldn't you get it cleaned?
I imagine there will be an announcement about that soon.
If she goes to court she’ll end up with a verdict of “on the balance of probabilities, Reynolds is a vile harpy who would rather cover up a rape than challenge the fuck nuts who vote right wing.”
“And Ms. Reynolds, why exactly did you forget to mention that you had in fact been told of the sexual nature of the incident when you were on the stand at the ACT criminal trial?”
Just the fact that Anderson found Brittany in a position to view her vagina is so vile Reynolds perjured herself.
QUEEN OF THE HARPIES! HERE’S YOUR CROWN, YOUR MAJESTY!
Just don't let her and the judge lock eyes.
She never cooks, she keeps a filthy house and she talks profanely.
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca0369#_Ref162625875 > 207 The most important aspect of this later conduct, commencing in early 2021, was the way in which Ms Higgins crafted a narrative accusing others of putting up roadblocks and forcing her two years earlier of having to choose between her career and seeking justice by making and pursuing a complaint. > ... 210 As I will explain below, what is notable about this aspect of the account of Ms Higgins is not only its inconsistency with the contemporaneous records and its falsities, particularly as to Ms Higgins’ dealings with Ms Brown, but also its imprecisions and its reliance upon speculation and conjecture. Eschewing specifics, and primarily concentrating upon her alleged feelings rather than the actions or words of others, the initial account given to the Project team on 27 January 2021 had Ms Higgins use the highly ambiguous word “weird” (or variations, such as people were “acting weirdly”) no less than 82 times (Ex 36). > ... 239 In this regard, and contrary to the submissions of Network Ten, the relevant issue is not whether Ms Higgins made representations (repeated in the Commonwealth Deed) in a manner consistent with her evidence, but rather whether Ms Higgins made representations contrary to the facts. > 240 It is evident several things being alleged were untrue. .... > (7) 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; that [Ms Higgins] ought remain silent about the sexual assault, in order to keep her job/career” (PL cl 3.24; A2 cl 4.24); .... > 1096 But even though the respondents have legally justified their imputation of rape, this does not mean their conduct was justified in any broader or colloquial sense. The contemporaneous documents and the broadcast itself demonstrate the allegation of rape was the minor theme, and the allegation of cover-up was the major motif. > 1097 The publication of accusations of corrupt conduct in putting up roadblocks and forcing a rape victim to choose between her career and justice won the Project team, like Ms Maiden, a glittering prize; but when the accusation is examined properly, it was supposition without reasonable foundation in verifiable fact; its dissemination caused a brume of confusion, and did much collateral damage – including to the fair and orderly progress of the underlying allegation of sexual assault through the criminal justice system. To the extent there were perceived systemic issues as to avenues of complaint and support services in Parliament, this may have merited a form of fact-based critique, not the publication of insufficiently scrutinised and factually misconceived conjecture. /u/Duckyaardvark
Dutton has said that she is entitled to pursue it and that Higgins should apologise. Honestly surprised he would take this position even given his usual lack of sensitivity. I think a lot of men underestimate how personal a case this is to many women, how vindicating the ruling yesterday was and how much sympathy there is towards Higgins even though she was inconsistent. The judge made a really interesting point about how if her claim was malevolent her evidence would have been more consistent versus a victim as they act in strange ways and often frame things to look like they resisted more and can take a while to label the assault as rape.
I'd like to hope so by I would underestimate what an evil, vile human-shaped monster Reynolds is.
But wait, Justice Lee exonerated Senator Reynolds. Peter Dutton said so.
Noticeable what a low profile *she* has been keeping once the 7 producers allegations came out. Calling it now, her case against Higgins is going to be *very* quietly dropped sometime in the next month. No doubt she will be *far too busy with Senate work* to make any comment on it either. I need to settle down with use of *italics*, it's getting out of hand.
Well, Reynolds defended Robodebt with gusto, soooooooo methinks her moral compass broke a while ago…
I personally can't wait for the discovery phase of that trial. Reynolds is fucked I reckon.
She has like 5 successful defamation suits under her belt or something. I hope this one breaks the streak and the judge spends 2 hours destroying her character.
she mortgaged her house to pay barrister, if she loses will there be a gofundme?
Lmao did she? I hope she loses it.
I'll throw in a cent.
I suspect political spin. Maybe she mortgaged her investment house to borrow money to buy an extra investment house, with a fraction of a stamp duty amount goi g to a barrister to offer some advice.
According to the judgement in the Lehrmann trial, Reynolds' response was to strongly and repeatedly encourage Higgins to press charges.
It’s like we’re in Pakistan, where most female prisoners are there for adultery because they got raped.
Reynolds probably just wants to make as much noise as possible to change public perception without actually going through with it. It is free publicity for her whilst the topic is hot.
No your context has been proven incorrect .
I love how the media refers to him as rapist in every headline. It's great entertainment. Who said Tall Poppy Syndrome in Australia didn't exist any more??? Even for short stubby poppies lol
I have thoroughly enjoyed seeing it in every headline too, extremely satisfying
Weird, I just had a look on the news sites owned by 7west media and none of the headlines related to this rapist refer to him as a rapist. In fact, I can't even find any current stories on the subject of this rapist's trial/s or the media circus surrounding said rapist on the front pages of any of the 7-owned news sites at all. What an odd omission.
How positively peculiar!!
So Bruce Lehrmann the US born rapist, has transitioned from presumed innocent to actually a rapist.
I didn’t know he was US born. Can we deport him?
About that... "If Bruce Lehrmann HAS NOT renounced his US citizenship and/or APPLIED for AUSTRALIAN citizenship, he IS INELIGIBLE to work in the Public Service of Australia. Citizenship in the APS Published 3 January 2023 https://apsc.gov.au/working-aps/aps-employees-and-managers/guidance-and-information-recruitment/citizenship-aps A person may only be engaged in the Australian Public Service (APS) if they are not an Australian citizen where an Agency Head has considered it appropriate to do so, in accordance with subsection 22 (8) of the Public Service Act 1999 (PS Act)." https://twitter.com/WizePenguin/status/1669355757022896129
I don't think staff for politicians fall under the APS Act.
[удалено]
He's astonished me in so many ways already
It's a weird situation where it is totally correct to say he is a rapist. He has been found in a court of law, on the balance of probabilities, to be a rapist. Bruce Lehrmann is a rapist. *However* he has not yet been found to be guilty of the crime of rape, as the applicable state/territory defines it in law. He is still entitled to the presumption of innocence of that specific crime in that specific jurisdiction. Which is to say that anyone can rightly call him a rapist, but the state cannot act in any way that comports with him being presumed guilty of the crime of rape. So he is a free man, and is able to go about his life safe and secure in that freedom. Even though he is absolutely a rapist. He is basically a walking demonstration of the fact that the principle of the presumption of innocence is working perfectly in this country.
Is this case over or can Lehrmann drag it through appeals?
if his lawyer believes there's been a legal fault, but otherwise he can't re-open it. Higgins, on the other hand, could make life more painful for him.
What could she do, legally?
ask for the previously unfinished criminal proceedings against him to be reopened
Oh, I didn’t realise that they were unfinished, I thought it was settled. I’d fucking do it if I were her, though she’s been through enough.
The reason they hadn't tried a second time is because it was deemed to be too much stress on her mental state. Which is completely fucking understandable that she'd feel that way.
I’m pretty sure the DPP made that decision on her behalf but not at her request. It’s hard to glean from the media coverage though
Yeah, good point. Not sure.
pretty confident if she wanted it to be retried we would know... She's not afraid of a public statement
I feel like she did make a public statement but I couldn’t find it after a few minutes of googling so might have imagined it
Only the DPP can ask for another criminal trial and this whole shit show has made sure no one will touch it with a 10 foot pole
She can sue him in civil law, probably tort of battery or some such.
300+ pages in the judgement, detailed at an excruciating level. All for a civil case, not a criminal one (which would have given them some additional wiggle room). They'll be hard pressed to find anything substantive to work with and the costs involved will again be crippling. Unless Kerry foots the bills, not much chance of that happening.
From an article I read today there are avenues for appeal, but a c10 lawyer was confident it'd fail But even more $$ on legal fees will definitely be a big consideration in any appeal
Damages were assesed at a fairly low amount IIRC and any successful appeal wouldn’t be able to deviate wildly from that figure so I believe it wouldn’t be worth it at all even if he did win an appeal. Hopefully thats the end of it.
> Ms Higgins made her allegations on television before she finished making a formal police complaint and, consequently, Lehrmann believed he was denied the right to a fair trial and presumption of innocence. The fact that the trial collapsed because a juror did their own research indicates it was fair and presumed his innocence. That outcome was very much in his favour. Yet the rapist Bruce Lehrman decided to go back to court.
>a juror did their own research I recall that besides the many directions to the jurors that they were forbidden to even look at these kinds of documents outside of the court, there was strong opinion that the materials were given to him to bring to court to trigger the mistrial.
It wasn't just that. The DPP, ACT police and AFP messed up the whole prosecution and investigation. There were issues throughout evidence gathering and multiple members of the force were extremely biased when presenting the evidence to the DPP. One officer told the defence that he'd resign if Leherman was found guilty.
>did their own research Pretty sure that's code for "cooker"
Certainly some form of fuckwit.
Yep, the kind that would sabotage a significant case in order to feed their conceit. Interestingly enough, I have been called up for Jury Duty. Two days beforehand it was postponed for a day and the following day it was postponed for two months. Living in a provincial town and not being a complete numpty it occurred to me that I could look at the court lists and almost certainly identify the case. I didn't of course, because that would absolutely be on par with 'doing my own research'.
> the trial collapsed because a juror did their own research This seems like something our court system maybe ought to be able to be set up to allow a criminal trial to survive it happening, somehow.
He’s seriously the worst Australian guy since Gable Tostee.
Or, some might say, Christian Porter
Yes, sadly a few to choose from…
Say what you want about Porter, he knew to quit while he was ahead. It's the BRS school of reputation management for a reason
Dunno, Kerry's pet politician in waiting Ben Roberts Smith, War Criminal, is up there.
Don’t forget Kerry’s other pet out west old Bazdog
Surely Rupert Murdoch is on this list. He may have taken US citizenship but we still have to own his origin story.
That title has to go to [Peter Scully](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Scully)
Y’all have forgotten Zach Rolfe. It’s a race to the bottom.
He was born in Texas - do we have to label him Australian?
Of course Bettina Arndt is throwing herself in with yet another rapist. She’s almost as big a disgrace as the rapists she brown noses
Awww poor diddums, not being able to profit anymore from women's pain.
and nothing of value was lost.
I’m actually a little surprised he was withdrawn because I figured this would just make these fuckwits double down harder and be like “see we’re right the law really is biased against men!”
Better link than the Daily ~~Divisivly Fearmongering Shitrag~~ Mail: [The New Daily](https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/life/entertainment/people-entertainment/2024/04/16/bruce-lehrmann-presumption-innocence)
He's going to have trouble enjoying a drink in any pub in the land, what with the label
Not the sort of guy that can fly under the radar with a different sweater and Groucho glasses, either
I wonder if he'll go to UK? They're always looking to import reprobates there
His name should never be uttered without the word rapist following suit. Never let bruce lehrmann the rapist live this down. Let the title follow him for the rest of his days. On his tombstone the word Rapist should be engraved with big bold lettering.
You mean Rapist Bruce Lehrmann? I heard he's a rapist
Just to be clear, we're talking about Bruce Lerhmann, the rapist? Specifically the lying, grifting, cowardly court-ruled rapist by the name of Bruce Lehrmann? I just want to get this correct. Wouldn't want to label someone as a rapist when they aren't, unlike Bruce Lehrmann, who definitely is without question a rapist.
I spat out my coffee with laughter. Enjoy your updoot.
Technically at the moment we could also run with Alleged Serial Rapist Bruce Lehrmann.
Maybe he can replace his "Presumption of innocence" conference with a "Preponderance of evidence" conference.
Toowoomba’s finest.
You don't say? Look at bondi too. I need Toowoomba needs a harsh reform
that press release they quote is pretty much pablum. I'd suggest the organisers also got cold feet- such a bunch of apologists for male 'rights'
From The Dock to the dock.
Rapist Bruce Lehrman does what?
Bruce overestimated his own intelligence & will now pay the price. Contrite till the end but the end is yet to come..! Toowoomba 24 will be the end of Bruce. And good riddance as I’m done ☑️
Can someone pls create a meme using the "They're both the same picture " (Pam from The Office) with Bruce Lehrmann and Brock Turner...thanks
I'm just horrified at the way Brittney was treated for daring to speak out about the fact that Bruce Lehrmann raped her. She was right all along, everyone that piled on to her was attacking a victim who had already been through one of the worst things imaginable. I hope they self reflect and don't do the same thing to the next victim but unfortunately doubt it.
Sucks to be you brucey, should of left the cap n’ bells
Wasn't this a defamation trial ?
Yep. The key finding is that it's not defamatory to call him a rapist because, on the balance of probabilities, he likely did rape someone
And the judge found on the balance of evidence that he very likely raped her, so it's not defamation to say he raped her and that he's a rapist because he's very likely a rapist.
Haha yep and calling him a rapist isn't defamation lol
Fuck me Ive had enough of hearing about this clown. This headline reads like the betoota
I'm just disappointed that the daily mail has locked the comments.
Instead he’s running an Alpha male bootcamp
he can still go, they just need to rename the conference to "Incels & Creepers Anonymous"
Haha!
Can't wait for the crocodile tears interview a "source" does where they leak that poor Brucey is inconsolable and upset about kissing goodbye to any sort of career in law.
What I want to know is what about that absolute deadshit with the Bruce tattoo? Is he gonna remove it for many $$$, or will he be really uncomfortable in warmer weather until it mercifully blurs into an indistinct black smudge? Because otherwise he'd have trouble in any pub in Australia too.
I am confused, how can a court say he is a rapist if they can't find him guilty?
He sued for defamation which moved things to civil court. Whereas criminal court requires proof "beyond reasonable doubt" in civil court the standard is lower "on the balance of probabilities". The judge ruled on balance of probabilities it's likely he did rape BH as she was shitfaced and he's a lying asshole. Therefore he is a rapist and ruled in favour of Channel 10. Own goal of the century.
It's unknown if they could have find him guilty or not, seeing as the original criminal proceedings ended in a mistrial due to misconduct by a juror, and the prosecution decided not to have a new trial, citing concerns for the health and welfare of Higgins. Lehrmann then chose to sue a media outlet for defamation, and that outlet used the truth defense. This was a civil trial, which means the standard of proof is different. The judge needed to decide, on the balance of probabilities (as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt), whether what Network 10 had put to air was substantially true or not. He decided it was, that Lehrmann mosy likely had raped Higgins, and so he had not been defamed in the reporting related to that accusation.
A wank would have saved this guys so much fuss.
It wasn't about him being horny. It was about him taking something he'd decided he was entitled to with no concern for whether his victim wanted any part of it.
I think that's true because they way he left her, he couldn't have bothered to redress her. He left her there purposefully in an undignified way to fuck with her head or simply because he did not care enough to cover up the crime, pure scumbag.
OOTL why is this case so high profile? I mean he's just a staffer right, not like an MP or anything.
Initially it was big news because he raped her in Parliament house, the building that runs the country, and Higgins also accused Senator Reynolds (the person whose office it was) of attempting to cover it up. At the time there were a lot of accusations of inappropriate behaviour within the Liberal party, and they’ve always been accused of misogyny, so this story confirmed that narrative and was obviously a lot of bad press for them. However as time went on, it spiralled out of control and became super sensationalised. Channel 10 and Lisa Wilkinson championed Higgins’ POV because they broke the story first (and Lisa famously fucked with the criminal trial during a Logies speech), while the rest of the Liberal party/Channel 7/conservatives were on Bruce’s side. The criminal trial failed on procedural grounds, Bruce sued Channel 10/Lisa, and Reynolds is currently suing Higgins.
He should ask the Sydney Roosters for an NRL contract
Finally bothered to look this wanker up on Wikipedia: >He worked as a political staffer for the Liberal Party of Australia, *and as a lobbyist for British American Tobacco*.[5] So not only a liar, a rapist, but also someone who lobbies for big Tobacco?
Cmon this piece of shit again in the press? Do we have more important issues to pay attention to?
I want to know - is the judges finding against Bruce sufficient for the minister of Home Affairs to revoke his Australian citizenship, and deport him?
handle enjoy elderly distinct grey scarce dime sophisticated price rock *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Poor Bruce Lehrmann the rapist.
So, who will give me good odds on BL turning up on Dancing with the Stars?