-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
They said words to the effect of its been pulled, as it wasn't in the public interest to pursue at the risk of her life.
I'll just put this (disclaimer - Murdoch news) here:
Exclusive
Brittany Higgins’ protected evidence – including her psychological counselling notes – were unlawfully disclosed by police to Bruce Lehrmann’s original defence lawyers in September last year.
News.com.au has obtained documents outlining how the disclosure infuriated the Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold who demanded the police retrieve the information urgently.
“This issue is quite serious, the counselling notes and other sensitive information of a rape complainant have been unlawfully given to counsel for an alleged rapist,’’ the DPP wrote in October 2021.
It followed a fight between prosecutors and police over whether there was enough evidence to prosecute and police complaints the case was “political”.
The matter was never disclosed to the jury, but was outlined in police documents subpoenaed by the defence after a legal tussle with the DPP.
Bruce Lehrmann has always maintained his innocence and pleaded not guilty.
The second trial was abandoned on Friday after the DPP announced the sexual assault charge against Mr Lehrmann would be dropped, due to an “unacceptable risk to the life of the complainant.
The prohibited material disclosed to the defence, which also included Ms Higgins videotaped record of interview with police, was sent to Mr Lehrmann’s original defence lawyers, not his current defence barrister Steve Whybrow.
Mr Lehrmann was charged in August, 2021, with the AFP raising concerns over any prosecution in June, 2021.
The unauthorised disclosure to Mr Lehrmann’s defence team by police occurred in September 2021.
Contacted by news.com.au about the complaint over the police sending the material to the defence, the AFP said the matter remains “under investigation”.
Documents outline DPP’s fury over disclosure
The unauthorised disclosure of Ms Higgins counselling notes and videotaped evidence sparked a tense exchange of correspondence between the Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold and ACT Police Manager of Criminal Investigations, Detective Superintendent Scott Moller last year.
On October 11, 2021, the DPP wrote to Superintendent Moller complaining that the defence team’s claim they had not opened the material was “incomplete and highly concerning.”
“Noting he is still in possession of highly sensitive and protected information, is he going to return the memory stick to the AFP,’’ the DPP asked in respect of the defence counsel.
“It appears the least the AFP could do is send someone over to collect it. And my suggestion is that if and when you get it back you have the metadata examined to ensure sensitive documents have not been accessed or copied.”
“In conversation with me last week, (the defence lawyer) he stated he had copied the content onto a hard drive and did not know how to delete it.”
Senior cop believed insufficient evidence to prosecute
The Weekend Australian reports today Detective Superintendent Moller, the most senior cop on the Brittany Higgins case, also believed there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Bruce Lehrmann.
He advised investigators “have serious concerns in relation to the strength of (Ms Higgins’) evidence but also more importantly her mental health and how any future prosecution may affect her wellbeing”.
The material was never disclosed to the jury but was provided to Mr Lehrmann’s defence team on subpoena in the lead up to the trial.
The briefing, dated June 9, 2021, states that “there is limited corroborative evidence of sexual intercourse taking place or consent being withdrawn or not provided”.
Superintendent Moller also made notes of a conversation with his boss, ACT Deputy Chief Police Officer Michael Chew, on June 17 last year.
“DCPO [Mr Chew] advised he had a meeting with DPP who stated they will recommend prosecution,” the notes state.
“DCPO stated ‘if it was my choice I wouldn’t proceed. But it’s not my choice. There is too much political interference’. I said: ‘That’s disappointing given I think there is insufficient evidence.”
Ms Higgins’ complaint over unlawful disclosure
Ms Higgins lodged a complaint over the unlawful disclosure in April 2022.
It states that the ACT director of public prosecutions made her aware the AFP had “unlawfully disclosed protected material to the defence counsel”
“Since this date the DPP of the ACT has been in regular contact with various members of the AFP to ascertain how this breach occurred and under whose authority”, Ms Higgins’ complaint states.
“This has yet to yield any satisfactory results and has had a significant impact on my personal wellbeing.”
Her complaint stated that the notes would be protected under the relevant legislation and subject to immunity.
Legal team insisted they never opened it
Mr Lehrman’s original legal team emailed the AFP in early October, 2021 confirming that “in terms of the USB stick that you served on me (at the time of service of the Court Attendance notice), I have NOT viewed, downloaded or printed, any of the material contained on that USB stick”.
“The reason for that is that shortly after receiving the USB, I opened the stick, and simply saw by name the Folders of Items listed on the stick. It seemed to me from what I saw, that it did not look like a DPP Prosecution Brief, certainly not in the form that I’m used to seeing here in the New South Wales District Court system,’’ the lawyer said.
“I took the view that it looked like, what I might term, an Investigators Brief, and my intention was to wait and see what Brief would be served by the ACT Directors Office,’’ the lawyer said.
Brittany Higgins’ sensitive evidence disclosed to Lehrmann’s legal team by police
Brittany Higgins’ sensitive evidence – including counselling notes – were unlawfully disclosed by cops to Bruce Lehrmann’s defence lawyers last year.
Brittany Higgins’ protected evidence – including her psychological counselling notes – were unlawfully disclosed by police to Bruce Lehrmann’s original defence lawyers in September last year.
News.com.au has obtained documents outlining how the disclosure infuriated the Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold who demanded the police retrieve the information urgently.
“This issue is quite serious, the counselling notes and other sensitive information of a rape complainant have been unlawfully given to counsel for an alleged rapist,’’ the DPP wrote in October 2021.
It followed a fight between prosecutors and police over whether there was enough evidence to prosecute and police complaints the case was “political”.
The matter was never disclosed to the jury, but was outlined in police documents subpoenaed by the defence after a legal tussle with the DPP.
Bruce Lehrmann has always maintained his innocence and pleaded not guilty.
The second trial was abandoned on Friday after the DPP announced the sexual assault charge against Mr Lehrmann would be dropped, due to an “unacceptable risk to the life of the complainant.
The prohibited material disclosed to the defence, which also included Ms Higgins videotaped record of interview with police, was sent to Mr Lehrmann’s original defence lawyers, not his current defence barrister Steve Whybrow.
Mr Lehrmann was charged in August, 2021, with the AFP raising concerns over any prosecution in June, 2021.
The unauthorised disclosure to Mr Lehrmann’s defence team by police occurred in September 2021.
Contacted by news.com.au about the complaint over the police sending the material to the defence, the AFP said the matter remains “under investigation”.
The unauthorised disclosure of Ms Higgins counselling notes and videotaped evidence sparked a tense exchange of correspondence between the Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold and ACT Police Manager of Criminal Investigations, Detective Superintendent Scott Moller last year.
On October 11, 2021, the DPP wrote to Superintendent Moller complaining that the defence team’s claim they had not opened the material was “incomplete and highly concerning.”
“Noting he is still in possession of highly sensitive and protected information, is he going to return the memory stick to the AFP,’’ the DPP asked in respect of the defence counsel.
“It appears the least the AFP could do is send someone over to collect it. And my suggestion is that if and when you get it back you have the metadata examined to ensure sensitive documents have not been accessed or copied.”
“In conversation with me last week, (the defence lawyer) he stated he had copied the content onto a hard drive and did not know how to delete it.”
Senior cop believed insufficient evidence to prosecute
The Weekend Australian reports today Detective Superintendent Moller, the most senior cop on the Brittany Higgins case, also believed there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Bruce Lehrmann.
He advised investigators “have serious concerns in relation to the strength of (Ms Higgins’) evidence but also more importantly her mental health and how any future prosecution may affect her wellbeing”.
The material was never disclosed to the jury but was provided to Mr Lehrmann’s defence team on subpoena in the lead up to the trial.
Detective Superintendent Scott Moller believed there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Bruce Lehrmann.
Detective Superintendent Scott Moller believed there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Bruce Lehrmann.
The briefing, dated June 9, 2021, states that “there is limited corroborative evidence of sexual intercourse taking place or consent being withdrawn or not provided”.
Superintendent Moller also made notes of a conversation with his boss, ACT Deputy Chief Police Officer Michael Chew, on June 17 last year.
“DCPO [Mr Chew] advised he had a meeting with DPP who stated they will recommend prosecution,” the notes state.
“DCPO stated ‘if it was my choice I wouldn’t proceed. But it’s not my choice. There is too much political interference’. I said: ‘That’s disappointing given I think there is insufficient evidence.”
Ms Higgins’ complaint over unlawful disclosure
Ms Higgins lodged a complaint over the unlawful disclosure in April 2022.
It states that the ACT director of public prosecutions made her aware the AFP had “unlawfully disclosed protected material to the defence counsel”
“Since this date the DPP of the ACT has been in regular contact with various members of the AFP to ascertain how this breach occurred and under whose authority”, Ms Higgins’ complaint states.
“This has yet to yield any satisfactory results and has had a significant impact on my personal wellbeing.”
Her complaint stated that the notes would be protected under the relevant legislation and subject to immunity
Legal team insisted they never opened it
Mr Lehrman’s original legal team emailed the AFP in early October, 2021 confirming that “in terms of the USB stick that you served on me (at the time of service of the Court Attendance notice), I have NOT viewed, downloaded or printed, any of the material contained on that USB stick”.
“The reason for that is that shortly after receiving the USB, I opened the stick, and simply saw by name the Folders of Items listed on the stick. It seemed to me from what I saw, that it did not look like a DPP Prosecution Brief, certainly not in the form that I’m used to seeing here in the New South Wales District Court system,’’ the lawyer said.
“I took the view that it looked like, what I might term, an Investigators Brief, and my intention was to wait and see what Brief would be served by the ACT Directors Office,’’ the lawyer said.
What the AFP said over why they sent brief to defence lawyer
In response to the DPP’s demands in 2021 to know who had made the decision to hand the brief directly to the defence, the AFP informed the DPP of the policeman’s name and said “his reason for this decision and direction are as follows:
-The brief of evidence had been assessed by the ACT DPP
- The investigation had been independently reviewed
- There was a desire to expedite the matter
- There was a requirement to “implement efficiency in the COVID-19 environment”
DPP - Brittany Higgins ‘right to be scared’
While the unauthorised disclosure was never discussed at the trial, the DPP did say Ms Higgins was “right to be scared”.
“Suffice to say there were clearly strong political forces at play in the period immediately after the events, through the election and beyond,” Drumgold said in this closing address to the jury in the ACT Supreme Court.
Mr Drumgold also pointed to Ms Higgins’ evidence that she was terrified after then-home affairs minister Peter Dutton said was informed of her complaint under AFP protocols before she had recorded a statement to police.
“We say she is right to be scared, she is right to be cautious, and she is right to move slowly and carefully in handing her life over to police,” Mr Drumgold said.
The above shows what a political shitshow this incident has become.
Exclusive
Brittany Higgins’ protected evidence – including her psychological counselling notes – were unlawfully disclosed by police to Bruce Lehrmann’s original defence lawyers in September last year.
News.com.au has obtained documents outlining how the disclosure infuriated the Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold who demanded the police retrieve the information urgently.
“This issue is quite serious, the counselling notes and other sensitive information of a rape complainant have been unlawfully given to counsel for an alleged rapist,’’ the DPP wrote in October 2021.
It followed a fight between prosecutors and police over whether there was enough evidence to prosecute and police complaints the case was “political”.
The matter was never disclosed to the jury, but was outlined in police documents subpoenaed by the defence after a legal tussle with the DPP.
Bruce Lehrmann has always maintained his innocence and pleaded not guilty.
The second trial was abandoned on Friday after the DPP announced the sexual assault charge against Mr Lehrmann would be dropped, due to an “unacceptable risk to the life of the complainant.
The prohibited material disclosed to the defence, which also included Ms Higgins videotaped record of interview with police, was sent to Mr Lehrmann’s original defence lawyers, not his current defence barrister Steve Whybrow.
Mr Lehrmann was charged in August, 2021, with the AFP raising concerns over any prosecution in June, 2021.
The unauthorised disclosure to Mr Lehrmann’s defence team by police occurred in September 2021.
Contacted by news.com.au about the complaint over the police sending the material to the defence, the AFP said the matter remains “under investigation”.
Documents outline DPP’s fury over disclosure
The unauthorised disclosure of Ms Higgins counselling notes and videotaped evidence sparked a tense exchange of correspondence between the Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold and ACT Police Manager of Criminal Investigations, Detective Superintendent Scott Moller last year.
On October 11, 2021, the DPP wrote to Superintendent Moller complaining that the defence team’s claim they had not opened the material was “incomplete and highly concerning.”
“Noting he is still in possession of highly sensitive and protected information, is he going to return the memory stick to the AFP,’’ the DPP asked in respect of the defence counsel.
“It appears the least the AFP could do is send someone over to collect it. And my suggestion is that if and when you get it back you have the metadata examined to ensure sensitive documents have not been accessed or copied.”
“In conversation with me last week, (the defence lawyer) he stated he had copied the content onto a hard drive and did not know how to delete it.”
Senior cop believed insufficient evidence to prosecute
The Weekend Australian reports today Detective Superintendent Moller, the most senior cop on the Brittany Higgins case, also believed there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Bruce Lehrmann.
He advised investigators “have serious concerns in relation to the strength of (Ms Higgins’) evidence but also more importantly her mental health and how any future prosecution may affect her wellbeing”.
The material was never disclosed to the jury but was provided to Mr Lehrmann’s defence team on subpoena in the lead up to the trial.
The briefing, dated June 9, 2021, states that “there is limited corroborative evidence of sexual intercourse taking place or consent being withdrawn or not provided”.
Superintendent Moller also made notes of a conversation with his boss, ACT Deputy Chief Police Officer Michael Chew, on June 17 last year.
“DCPO [Mr Chew] advised he had a meeting with DPP who stated they will recommend prosecution,” the notes state.
“DCPO stated ‘if it was my choice I wouldn’t proceed. But it’s not my choice. There is too much political interference’. I said: ‘That’s disappointing given I think there is insufficient evidence.”
Ms Higgins’ complaint over unlawful disclosure
Ms Higgins lodged a complaint over the unlawful disclosure in April 2022.
It states that the ACT director of public prosecutions made her aware the AFP had “unlawfully disclosed protected material to the defence counsel”
“Since this date the DPP of the ACT has been in regular contact with various members of the AFP to ascertain how this breach occurred and under whose authority”, Ms Higgins’ complaint states.
“This has yet to yield any satisfactory results and has had a significant impact on my personal wellbeing.”
Her complaint stated that the notes would be protected under the relevant legislation and subject to immunity.
Legal team insisted they never opened it
Mr Lehrman’s original legal team emailed the AFP in early October, 2021 confirming that “in terms of the USB stick that you served on me (at the time of service of the Court Attendance notice), I have NOT viewed, downloaded or printed, any of the material contained on that USB stick”.
“The reason for that is that shortly after receiving the USB, I opened the stick, and simply saw by name the Folders of Items listed on the stick. It seemed to me from what I saw, that it did not look like a DPP Prosecution Brief, certainly not in the form that I’m used to seeing here in the New South Wales District Court system,’’ the lawyer said.
“I took the view that it looked like, what I might term, an Investigators Brief, and my intention was to wait and see what Brief would be served by the ACT Directors Office,’’ the lawyer said.
Brittany Higgins’ sensitive evidence disclosed to Lehrmann’s legal team by police
Brittany Higgins’ sensitive evidence – including counselling notes – were unlawfully disclosed by cops to Bruce Lehrmann’s defence lawyers last year.
Brittany Higgins’ protected evidence – including her psychological counselling notes – were unlawfully disclosed by police to Bruce Lehrmann’s original defence lawyers in September last year.
News.com.au has obtained documents outlining how the disclosure infuriated the Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold who demanded the police retrieve the information urgently.
“This issue is quite serious, the counselling notes and other sensitive information of a rape complainant have been unlawfully given to counsel for an alleged rapist,’’ the DPP wrote in October 2021.
It followed a fight between prosecutors and police over whether there was enough evidence to prosecute and police complaints the case was “political”.
The matter was never disclosed to the jury, but was outlined in police documents subpoenaed by the defence after a legal tussle with the DPP.
Bruce Lehrmann has always maintained his innocence and pleaded not guilty.
The second trial was abandoned on Friday after the DPP announced the sexual assault charge against Mr Lehrmann would be dropped, due to an “unacceptable risk to the life of the complainant.
The prohibited material disclosed to the defence, which also included Ms Higgins videotaped record of interview with police, was sent to Mr Lehrmann’s original defence lawyers, not his current defence barrister Steve Whybrow.
Mr Lehrmann was charged in August, 2021, with the AFP raising concerns over any prosecution in June, 2021.
The unauthorised disclosure to Mr Lehrmann’s defence team by police occurred in September 2021.
Contacted by news.com.au about the complaint over the police sending the material to the defence, the AFP said the matter remains “under investigation”.
The unauthorised disclosure of Ms Higgins counselling notes and videotaped evidence sparked a tense exchange of correspondence between the Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold and ACT Police Manager of Criminal Investigations, Detective Superintendent Scott Moller last year.
On October 11, 2021, the DPP wrote to Superintendent Moller complaining that the defence team’s claim they had not opened the material was “incomplete and highly concerning.”
“Noting he is still in possession of highly sensitive and protected information, is he going to return the memory stick to the AFP,’’ the DPP asked in respect of the defence counsel.
“It appears the least the AFP could do is send someone over to collect it. And my suggestion is that if and when you get it back you have the metadata examined to ensure sensitive documents have not been accessed or copied.”
“In conversation with me last week, (the defence lawyer) he stated he had copied the content onto a hard drive and did not know how to delete it.”
Senior cop believed insufficient evidence to prosecute
The Weekend Australian reports today Detective Superintendent Moller, the most senior cop on the Brittany Higgins case, also believed there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Bruce Lehrmann.
He advised investigators “have serious concerns in relation to the strength of (Ms Higgins’) evidence but also more importantly her mental health and how any future prosecution may affect her wellbeing”.
The material was never disclosed to the jury but was provided to Mr Lehrmann’s defence team on subpoena in the lead up to the trial.
Detective Superintendent Scott Moller believed there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Bruce Lehrmann.
Detective Superintendent Scott Moller believed there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Bruce Lehrmann.
The briefing, dated June 9, 2021, states that “there is limited corroborative evidence of sexual intercourse taking place or consent being withdrawn or not provided”.
Superintendent Moller also made notes of a conversation with his boss, ACT Deputy Chief Police Officer Michael Chew, on June 17 last year.
“DCPO [Mr Chew] advised he had a meeting with DPP who stated they will recommend prosecution,” the notes state.
“DCPO stated ‘if it was my choice I wouldn’t proceed. But it’s not my choice. There is too much political interference’. I said: ‘That’s disappointing given I think there is insufficient evidence.”
Ms Higgins’ complaint over unlawful disclosure
Ms Higgins lodged a complaint over the unlawful disclosure in April 2022.
It states that the ACT director of public prosecutions made her aware the AFP had “unlawfully disclosed protected material to the defence counsel”
“Since this date the DPP of the ACT has been in regular contact with various members of the AFP to ascertain how this breach occurred and under whose authority”, Ms Higgins’ complaint states.
“This has yet to yield any satisfactory results and has had a significant impact on my personal wellbeing.”
Her complaint stated that the notes would be protected under the relevant legislation and subject to immunity
Legal team insisted they never opened it
Mr Lehrman’s original legal team emailed the AFP in early October, 2021 confirming that “in terms of the USB stick that you served on me (at the time of service of the Court Attendance notice), I have NOT viewed, downloaded or printed, any of the material contained on that USB stick”.
“The reason for that is that shortly after receiving the USB, I opened the stick, and simply saw by name the Folders of Items listed on the stick. It seemed to me from what I saw, that it did not look like a DPP Prosecution Brief, certainly not in the form that I’m used to seeing here in the New South Wales District Court system,’’ the lawyer said.
“I took the view that it looked like, what I might term, an Investigators Brief, and my intention was to wait and see what Brief would be served by the ACT Directors Office,’’ the lawyer said.
What the AFP said over why they sent brief to defence lawyer
In response to the DPP’s demands in 2021 to know who had made the decision to hand the brief directly to the defence, the AFP informed the DPP of the policeman’s name and said “his reason for this decision and direction are as follows:
-The brief of evidence had been assessed by the ACT DPP
- The investigation had been independently reviewed
- There was a desire to expedite the matter
- There was a requirement to “implement efficiency in the COVID-19 environment”
DPP - Brittany Higgins ‘right to be scared’
While the unauthorised disclosure was never discussed at the trial, the DPP did say Ms Higgins was “right to be scared”.
“Suffice to say there were clearly strong political forces at play in the period immediately after the events, through the election and beyond,” Drumgold said in this closing address to the jury in the ACT Supreme Court.
Mr Drumgold also pointed to Ms Higgins’ evidence that she was terrified after then-home affairs minister Peter Dutton said was informed of her complaint under AFP protocols before she had recorded a statement to police.
“We say she is right to be scared, she is right to be cautious, and she is right to move slowly and carefully in handing her life over to police,” Mr Drumgold said.
The above shows what a political shitshow this incident has become.
Last edited:
No one tell bengal:
"Only about one in four people under the age of 40 reported voting for the Coalition in 2022."
www.theguardian.com
"Only about one in four people under the age of 40 reported voting for the Coalition in 2022."
Millennials and gen Z have deserted the Coalition – this could be dire for the opposition | Simon Jackman
Labor now has the opportunity to imprint lifelong loyalty on younger people
They are going the way of the dinosaur.No one tell bengal:
"Only about one in four people under the age of 40 reported voting for the Coalition in 2022."
Millennials and gen Z have deserted the Coalition – this could be dire for the opposition | Simon Jackman
Labor now has the opportunity to imprint lifelong loyalty on younger people
Dinosaurs were more progressive. They evolved into chickens.
Young people (not kids who are brainwashed by their parents) don't believe in god and want to have a planet to live on. It's not difficult to work out.
And they're less likely to rely on legacy media for their news, so they don't consume the steady diet of biased bullshite Boomers live on.
unfortunately a lot of crimes are going unpunished or even unreported at present in Melbourne.
I might try and walk into bottleshop, take my slab and just walk out without paying today,
Seems many can atm, bet if i did it, i would be charged.
I might try and walk into bottleshop, take my slab and just walk out without paying today,
Seems many can atm, bet if i did it, i would be charged.
That's a pretty big comment to make Bunnerz. What evidence do you have to back that up?
Agree
A real bugbear of mine is the unpunished crimes and behaviour, as well as the flogged with a feather duster punishments for a lot of crimes.
Idiots at the footy and cricket after ruining peoples days are removed from the ground as punishment, if they racially vilify someone they might get banned.
There should at least be a documented online recording of the incident.
Repeat offenders can then be flogged with one the feather duster punishments that are the norm nowadays.
It’s all good. A rusted on liberal friend of mine said this was normal as young people move to liberal later in life when they grow up ….No one tell bengal:
"Only about one in four people under the age of 40 reported voting for the Coalition in 2022."
Millennials and gen Z have deserted the Coalition – this could be dire for the opposition | Simon Jackman
Labor now has the opportunity to imprint lifelong loyalty on younger people
I said if that is what you and other liberal supporters think then the liberal party is *smile*
Or when rapists have their crime scene steam-cleaned by politicians, or when paedophile priests are protected for decades, or when government ministers introduce illegal schemes that hound poor people to suicide, or pay their donors $30 million in taxpayer money for a $3 million property, or grift water entitlements, or breach international law in barbaric treatment of refugees, or prosecute whistleblowers for exposing crime and corruption, etc, etc.
Meanwhile a young woman in NSW is jailed for 15 months for partially blocking a road for 25 minutes. Despite all the truckers and farmers and cookers who have been allowed to cause far greater disruption.
Priorities.
So you have evidence, that a lot of crimes are unpunished or unreported.
Wouldn't the fact that it's unreported mean, there's no evidence at all?
I have immediate family who work in this area, and whilst I think that there's a very
lenient system where people get 43 more chances than they should, there is in fact a
"punishment" - just an ineffective one.
I am sickened by how far things go to support people who've offended. But, stritcly speaking,
they do get some form of court appointed rehabilitation device.
