Moderator Note/Summary to help: Please note this is a civil trial (Lehrmann sued Network 10 for ruining his reputation (‘defamation’) for labelling him a rapist) Network 10 said in their defence, its not defamation because he is a rapist/the rape did happen - I’ve watered down the nitty gritty:
The test to prove network’s 10 claims/defence is “on the balance of probabilities” which loosely means more likely than not, because this is a civil case. They had to prove it was more likely than not accurate to report Lehrmann was a rapist. If Lehrmann won (if the judge found the rape did not occur), he’d be entitled to compensation (money) for having his reputation ruined.
In a criminal case, the standard (test) is beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning (again loosely) a reasonable person would be convinced there is no reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. In a criminal trial, if you’re found guilty, you go to jail (or fined), because the consequences are much worse, the amount of evidence/proof it takes to convince someone (the test) is higher (beyond a reasonable doubt vs on the balance of probabilities).
The judge found on the balance of probabilities (ie more likely than not), network 10’s reporting was accurate (although there was still issues with their reporting), that Bruce Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins, and he will now have to pay everyone’s legal costs (to be determined). How the judge got to this conclusion is in the judgement - please feel free to post any corrections/questions below.
*everything above has a bunch of caveats, this is a plain-speak summary for those of us who are not as familiar with the law.
Well he has been proven to be a complete C. What makes me laugh is that Kerry Stokes is now 0 from 2. He banked rolled BRS now this waste of oxygen. What next? Will he bank roll Reynolds with her case.
There once was a fellow named Bruce,
Who was accused but was offered a truce.
He sued for defamation,
Then came the revelation,
That old Bruce was in fact a huge douche.
Move over Streisand effect
Make way for the Lehrmann effect: when you accidentally get yourself ruled a rapist by a judge in a public courtroom
Thank goodness, it would’ve been a really sad ruling for women all over Australia if that very fucking obvious rape was ruled not so
For those unsure about the standard of proof required, extract from the judgment:
98 The concept used in subsection (1), being the “balance of probabilities”, is often misunderstood. It does not mean a simple estimate of probabilities; it requires a subjective belief in a state of facts on the part of the tribunal of fact. A party bearing the onus will not succeed unless the whole of the evidence establishes a “reasonable satisfaction” on the preponderance of probabilities such as to sustain the relevant issue: Axon v Axon (1937) 59 CLR 395 (at 403 per Dixon J). The “facts proved must form a reasonable basis for a definite conclusion affirmatively drawn of the truth of which the tribunal of fact may reasonably be satisfied”: Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 (at 305 per Dixon CJ). Put another way, as Sir Owen Dixon explained in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 (at 361), when the law requires proof of any fact, the tribunal of fact must feel an actual persuasion of its occurrence or existence before it can be found.
Wait so what’s the burden of proof? Is reasonable satisfaction on the preponderance of possibilities the same thing as the preponderance of evidence? Or is it something more?
*1091 Having escaped the lions’ den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat.*
[Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) \[2024\] FCA 369 (fedcourt.gov.au)](https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca0369)
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. He should have been grateful for the mysterious errant juror helping him get off scott free as the criminal trial was aborted. Instead, his momentous sense of entitlement and narcissistic worldview propelled him towards revenge… Enjoy your next criminal trial, your next set of rape allegations, ahole!
I understand your sentiment here, but I think there’s an important distinction to be made. From the wonderful Hannah Ferguson of Cheekmediaco:
“We can't equate this with the word justice, because these are not criminal proceedings, this isn't a criminal conviction, it's not criminal guilt. What happened today was Bruce Lehrmann, who has been accused of rape by multiple women, was not able to secure financial compensation through a civil mechanism for damage he believes he has suffered to his reputation for an allegation that the court today found to be on the balance of probabilities more likely to have occurred than not. That is a small victory, but it is not justice.
I want us all to find relief in this, but I also can't stop thinking about Brittany Higgins and the millions of others, of victim-survivors in this country who know it's not safe to approach the front doors of our criminal justice system, and who know they will be shamed and silenced by the media, and who have been re-traumatised through this process, and who have watched Brittany Higgins be re-traumatised for years. What happened today was, an entitled rapist was prevented from securing financial compensation. That is a win, it's not justice.”
https://preview.redd.it/q4u87oatkkuc1.png?width=527&format=png&auto=webp&s=bea7c693c10bedb680e4a09d7b1c57faf6e74c8b
This dickhead must be feeling great right now. Good life choice mate.
What is it with people these days bringing defamation suits when they are subject to full disclosure themselves? You cannot hide the lurid details. It’s like repeatedly punching yourself in the cock.
Best bit was when the judge said that he would have given him less than $20k if he had have found that they had defamed him, I assume because he had already impugned his own character enough 😂😂😂
As Justice Lee put it - he escaped the lion's den but then made the mistake of returning to get his hat.
Bruce, how's it feel being hoist with your petard like this? lol.
This may be a stupid question but - am I right in thinking this?
There was no determined verdict or outcome from the original court proceedings in 2022-2023, but he was confirmed as a rapist through his own defamation case? That he started?
Just FYI - There was no determined verdict because a jury member broke the rules of being a juror so the judge called a mistrial - and the prosecution didn’t want to put BH through the trauma of a second trial. So the rapist was hardly acquitted
> There was no determined verdict or outcome from the original court proceedings in 2022-2023, but he was confirmed as a rapist through his own defamation case? That he started?
No judgement was recorded for his criminal case, ie the criminal standard of proof was not reached.
A judgement has now been recorded using the civil standard (much lower), saying that on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not), Lehrmann raped Higgens.
And yes, the only reason that civil judgement has now been made was because he started a defamation case.
No judgement was recorded because the jury was discharged because of improper conduct by a juror.
The ACT DPP elected not to continue the retrial , stated because of concern for Brittany Higgins health.
We never got to test in court whether the criminal standard of proof was met or not.
more likely than not" that Mr Lehrmann was "so intent upon gratification to be indifferent to Ms Higgins's consent and hence went ahead with sexual intercourse without caring whether she consented".
The judge said he believed Mr Lehrmann was "hell-bent on having sex" with Ms Higgins.
"I consider it more likely than not, in those early hours after a long night of conviviality and drinking and having successfully brought Ms Higgins back to a secluded place, Mr Lehrmann was hell-bent on having sex with a woman he found sexually attractive and had been passionately kissing and touching and had encouraged to drink and knew had reducing inhibitions," he said.
Incredibly well salted curated wordsmithing from a wise judge. This will augur well presumably for BL's upcoming dates with other juries and have the Netflix's of the world scrambling to produce the mini series and sequel seasons I'm sure.
This thread is evidence of the fact people without a law degree make clowns of themselves when they try to weigh in on legal matters.
Justice Lee is one of the best defamation judges in the country. He should, in my opinion, have been considered for a spot on the High Court. His use of the ‘balance of probabilities’, which some have taken issue with, is the standard of proof in civil proceedings and always has been. It isn’t a conviction, it’s a successful defence to defamation that the allegations have enough credence to them that publishing them isn’t unfair reputational damage.
This was a very thorough and well written judgement by a talented, competent and respected Judicial official. It hopefully deters more people who narrowly escape criminal conviction in high-profile cases from bringing defamation suits against media outlets and presenters, a-la Roberts-Smith and Lehrmann.
Nope, if you go to the Australian they are doubling down. “How could a judge get it so wrong” “ I know Bruce didn’t do it” and so on.
It is hard to reconcile, when a fine mind spends months listening to evidence, thinking about the law and writes it down over 350 pages but that is not enough for the folks who read the Aus
yet again it’s shown that defamation actions are a mugs game
lesson not learned from Ben Roberts-Smith
I beg you Alan Jones, please start your defamation action against Nine
They are. Billions of instances of defamation occur throughout the world, yet only a trivial few cases are taken to court, exclusively by rich people to fuck over other rich people. It's just a game.
He did skewer channel 10 & their lawyer pretty bad. Said the cover-up story was rubbish & the ministers chief of staff at all times did the right thing & acted with integrity. At the end of the day the stories Bruce said didn’t really make any sense.
It feels like its BRS all over again lmao.
Once again proving Defamation Trials rarely EVER work in your favor.
Suck shit rapist. He could've walked away and left it alone and vanished into obscurity based on the errant juror.
But no he had to chase after channel 10. Suck shit cunt. Hope it was worth it lmao.
The salt in the wound is his initials stand for BL. Bad Luck.
The judge didn't just find that it was reasonable for Ten to call him a rapist given what Ten knew - he found that he did rape her, and from that Ten was reporting on the truth.
Now he happened to avoid being convicted for the rape that he did, so it would be inaccurate to refer to him as a "convicted rapist". Although I'm sure if he did come after you for defamation it would likely be found that the distinction doesn't affect that rapist's reputation, and no damages would be awarded.
But you can call him a rapist, because he committed at least one rape.
Defamation trials work out every day, it's just that people are learning that you probably shouldn't sue someone for defamation if you actually did the thing other people are saying about you.
That was the most golden statement I have heard from a judge in a long time. Surely this does become of legendary status.
https://preview.redd.it/lu1mz1holmuc1.jpeg?width=1792&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cd22c490c4bc5b8b7ff4d7fc0a810ef47d9d698e
>Once again proving Defamation Trials rarely EVER work in your favor.
They work all the time Bruce and BRS are just assholes. The deck was stacked towards them and they still lost.
I hope Brittany Higgins heals and is allowed space to not be hounded by the media and the rape apologists.
To all the women, men and whoever out there who have been raped, sending love and hope all of you recover.
Love all the news headlines: "Rapist leaves court".
Get fucked you slimy rapist; honestly this all feels like a formality given everyone knew he raped Higgins. Glad the tax payers had to cough up to fund all these court cases, now can he please disappear into obscurity so we never have to hear about this rapist again?
Wonder what the people who were vigorously defending Bruce after his sabotaged trial are doing now? The amount of men and some women who were adamant he was a victim of a false charge, despite how obvious it was that he did do it, were relentless.
I for one had my doubts before this trial and I am now quite convinced that Bruce is guilty.
What I didn't account for was just how unusual he is as a person - arrogant, impulsive, deceitful and self indulgent. Without this information, which eventually came out, it was hard to put all the pieces together.
We need the benefit of the doubt for our justice system to work. But too many people decided that also included attacking the credibility of a rape victim, without a hint of irony. As long as you didn't do that, then you're in the clear.
I still don’t understand why they went to their workplace, drunk at 2.00am? Why security let them in when they were not permitted in the Ministers office? In what world would this be ok? I have not heard what security have to say about this. If BL needed his car keys wouldn’t it be normal procedure for security to escort him the whole way in and out? Can somebody enlighten me?
I can imagine people rocking up there in the middle of the night to get some stuff they need to work on something that needs to get finished wouldn't be too rare in Parliament House. But they must have seen that at least Higgins was completely out of it and that the two were not going in there for work. Would be interesting to see what the correct protocol would have been and if there have been any consequences for the security staff.
The security staff said Higgins isn't seem overly intoxicated, despite the fact she'd consumed a shit tonne of alcohol. But if they'd admitted she was as drunk as she was, they would have breached protocols and would likely be disciplined. I think they were covering their own arses
I think the problem is the security staff is so used to judging drunkenness on the Barnaby scale.
They were not falling off pot plants or looking like a beetroot with high blood pressure, so they were only "moderately" pissed.
I used to know a guy who previously worked security at Parliament House and he said that the shit that goes on there would blow your mind. He quit working there because he got sick of having to turn a blind eye to the messed up things that went on there.
Bro.. I have worked at several government agencies in Sydney and as long as you have an agency issued pass, literally anything goes. I have gone back to the office on weekends, late at nights, with external guests and never been stopped.
Very different case. Regardless of your politics, Reynolds actually might have a reasonable case in many respects. Reynolds is alleging that she was defamed, being accused of being a roadblock against Higgins getting justice.
As the Lehmann trial showed, Fiona Brown for instance was not a road block at all, and wanted to go to police.
The Lehmann case on the other hand, I think most people thought he was guilty, and he was lucky to escape conviction last year.
Edit: it seems that Justice Lee thought Reynolds and Morrison were unfairly treated by Ch10 in this whole saga. If anything Reynolds’ case just got stronger.
Balance of probabilities is the ‘standard of proof’ meaning the test to win your case (in this case, that Network 10’s reporting that Lehrmann is a rapist was accurate). It loosely translates to more likely than not (a lot of legal caveats here). This is a civil trial where Lehrmann sued network 10 for defamation (that they ruined his reputation by ‘falsely’ claiming he was a rapist) and he deserves money to compensate him.
For a criminal trial, the standard is much tougher “beyond a reasonable doubt”, which again loosely translates to a jury must be convinced that any reasonable person has no reasonable doubt the accused did the crime. In a criminal case, the punishment is jail (or fines etc).
So in summary, it was an easier test to prove in a civil case that it is accurate to label him a rapist. The other side of that though, is he isn’t going to jail for this.
To take an extract directly out of the decision:
>The respondents have not won because I can exclude all other possibilities as to what happened, but because they have proven that such possibilities that are open on the evidence, both individually and collectively, are unlikely; and further because I am satisfied that the evidence provides an appropriate basis upon which to reach a conclusion
I honestly didn’t think he would be found as a rapist on the balance of probabilities. Good on Justice Lee, no one “side” can claim he didn’t give everyone and every side a fair go during this whole ordeal.
He has been patient, cutting through the bullshit, and delivered a well thought out decision.
My only concern is that now Brittany will be held up as some beacon when in fact, whilst she is a victim, she was obfuscating the truth to make herself look more “victim-ly” along the way.
I hope she gets some amount of solace from this decision, but I’m sure there will be more interviews about how brave she is and how she never once lied or altered photographs and how she was perfectly innocent throughout everything.
Bruce Lehrmann can suck a big ol bag of dicks, scummy prick.
Just curious as to why you thought that?
As Justice Lee said, why did he bring a drunk girl, he'd been hooking up with, back to a secledued place that he knew he had more alcohol at.
You know what, he probably would have won on the balance of probability if he told closer to the truth, we were both getting pissed at a club and hooking up, I had a Gf at home I didn't tell Brittany about so suggested we come to parliament to get freaky.
I take issue with your concerns around Brittany. While I agree their were some issues I don't hold victims of rape to such lofty standards and can understand her want to look "victim-ly" when you are a in fact a victim of sexual assault. Your just enforcing the perfect victim trope which hinders others from reporting and makes it harder for others to come forward. That's not to say there were'nt some issues, but as the judge repeated, her details remained consistent before the media got involved.
The media will roll out whatever trash they think will sell papers and make them look like the moral good guys but in reality the media (and in particular channels 7 and 10) were morally repugnant in their tribalism over factual reporting (however I don't think were gonna hear that Lisa payed for any hookers and blow).
> that Lisa *paid* for any
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
If OJ was a murderer after his civil trial, then Bruce is a rapist after his. Except the 'juice' ran 10000 yards in the NFL. This dude looks like he couldn't even run the 10 yards from the parliament to his car on the night in question.
Its an interesting analogy. The police in the OJ trial destroyed a strong case by fabricating one piece of evidence. If you want to be believed, tell it like it is.
Judge: "Well done. Here are the test results: You are a horrible person. I'm serious, that's what it says: "A horrible person." We weren't even testing for that. Don't let that horrible-person thing discourage you. It's just a data point. If it makes you feel any better, science has now validated your birth mother's decision to abandon you on a doorstep."
So what I take out of this is the following:
Channel 7 sucks
Channel 10 sucks
Bruce sucks and is a rapist.
Brittany sucks but doesn't deserve to be raped for sucking
Yeah the whole judgement really had a theme of “Jesus fucking Christ you all suck to different levels here, but rape is still bad, and the rest of you were not justified in your bullshit”
Judges mindset probs "if I look at this big fat fuck, do I think he rooted her after getting her blind drunk? Yep.. Now to write a 10,000 word essay saying that"
edit to add /s because it wasn't obvious
He has a trial coming up soon for a different rape that he is accused of committing. Considering how this judge excoriated the cunt for basically being a lying bastard, he's not likely to come across as overly credible if he tries on the usual "I'm a good man you can prove anything" defence.
Yes, that's the relevant civil standard. He brought the suit, remember? This wouldn't be happening if he hadn't done so. He's not a victim in any of this.
Liberal party hires 2 people under 25, that could not make a single sensible personal decision and paid them over 200000 p/a each to be senior advisors.
That's the other crime in this case.
How many other self entitled idiots like this are in Canberra, paid way beyond their competency.
Just found out today that Bruce Lehrmann the rapist doesn't even have a degree. How'd he become a senior advisor to a Minister by his mid twenties? Straight out of high school and into a cushy job...
"this shit" being holding a man to account for raping a woman in parliament house and the way it was dealt with by the LNP. No.
He is facing other rape charges. This POS will hopefully end up in jail
That will be up to the ACT justice system to decide to peruse or not. It’s certainly not going to be great tho for his Queensland trial to have a judgement on record concluding he did a harman breach.
I mean this with the upmost sincerity and respect, but how can you legally pass a sentence based on no actual evidence proving he actually raped her? I understand you can use video footage to show behaviour leading up to the event to get an idea of the situation, but none of that actually proves he is guilty, I am not defending him, I'm just trying to understand how basically hearsay can condemn someone without actual evidence of the crime that he is being accused of.
Because it's determined on *the balance of probabilities* - the civil standard (there's Briginshaw, but let's not get too confusing) - rather than *beyond reasonable doubt*, the criminal standard.
The judgment is well laid-out, but it's pretty damn long, so let me summate. BH and BL were 'pashing' at the bar before before they went to PH, they were intimate, and BL's stated reason for going to PH was to keep drinking. BH stated that 'BL had whisky to show me or something'. BH is visibly intoxicated on the CCTV. She's fallen over at the bar previously. She has trouble standing and can't put her shoes back on at PH. There's testimony from an expert that she was likely drunk at this point - she's at least 9 to 11 drinks in. If they're drinking straight whisky back in the suite, she's going to become *more* intoxicated. Her testimony is that she passed out, and when she came to, BL was on top of her.
HH found that it was likely that they went back to PH to continue drinking/intimacy. Sex likely happened, and with the amount of alcohol she consumed plus the whisky in the suite, it is likely she was incapacitated or so close to that point that she could not reasonably consent. Ergo, BL likely raped BH.
Not hearsay at all .
The matter was a civil case and the judge needed to establish from the evidence( and there was a lot ) what occurred .
His judgement is there to be read . All 324 pages . There was 24 days heard in court and a myriad of documents , videos and crossing the evidence given .
For multiple reasons including being an offence if you film a crime about to happen even if you are not the offender the UN report on crime will indicate how rare it is for footage to be available of a crime being committed .
So naturally the around the world convictions or otherwise are determined by the evidence .
The judge has done that categorically
Can we also now accept the story that this was a "Liberal Party coverup" was also a lie, concocted by Wilkinson and Sharaz. And in doing so, they have effectively denied her any justice to a criminal standard. To see Wilkinson celebrating this moment is truly bizarre.
What is the motive or benefit of having sex with a nearly comatose person? Isn't sex best had with mutual movement and ah. your lover kissing you back, liking what you are doing etc? I thought in consential sex that was a "dead lay" so what is the motive of a rapist? Power, ego, is it some sort of entitled delusionment? But how the bloody hell is it enjoyable
Moderator Note/Summary to help: Please note this is a civil trial (Lehrmann sued Network 10 for ruining his reputation (‘defamation’) for labelling him a rapist) Network 10 said in their defence, its not defamation because he is a rapist/the rape did happen - I’ve watered down the nitty gritty: The test to prove network’s 10 claims/defence is “on the balance of probabilities” which loosely means more likely than not, because this is a civil case. They had to prove it was more likely than not accurate to report Lehrmann was a rapist. If Lehrmann won (if the judge found the rape did not occur), he’d be entitled to compensation (money) for having his reputation ruined. In a criminal case, the standard (test) is beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning (again loosely) a reasonable person would be convinced there is no reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. In a criminal trial, if you’re found guilty, you go to jail (or fined), because the consequences are much worse, the amount of evidence/proof it takes to convince someone (the test) is higher (beyond a reasonable doubt vs on the balance of probabilities). The judge found on the balance of probabilities (ie more likely than not), network 10’s reporting was accurate (although there was still issues with their reporting), that Bruce Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins, and he will now have to pay everyone’s legal costs (to be determined). How the judge got to this conclusion is in the judgement - please feel free to post any corrections/questions below. *everything above has a bunch of caveats, this is a plain-speak summary for those of us who are not as familiar with the law.
He Roberts-Smithed himself.
Kicked *himself* off a cliff
Bruce fought the law and Bruce lost.
And he paid to be called a rapist. As in rapist Bruce Lehrmann.
What villain will 7 defend next?
This week on 7 Spotlight: Hitler: Was He Really All That Bad?
He did love cocaine....
first it was BRS and now BL. 7 sure know how to pick em lmao.
They could have at least claimed Bruce was the Sydney stabber instead of a random student.
Well he has been proven to be a complete C. What makes me laugh is that Kerry Stokes is now 0 from 2. He banked rolled BRS now this waste of oxygen. What next? Will he bank roll Reynolds with her case.
>What next? Alan Jones.
Kerry is attempting to financially cuck himself.
A fool and his money are soon easily parted. Hopefully he’ll continue to back losers and keep losing
The question is how much money did Syokes make from drumming up the drama though for views and ar revenue and if that offsets the legal costs?
There once was a fellow named Bruce, Who was accused but was offered a truce. He sued for defamation, Then came the revelation, That old Bruce was in fact a huge douche.
Move over Streisand effect Make way for the Lehrmann effect: when you accidentally get yourself ruled a rapist by a judge in a public courtroom Thank goodness, it would’ve been a really sad ruling for women all over Australia if that very fucking obvious rape was ruled not so
It’s already the Roberts-Smith effect
I’m an American who knows he exists simply because of this trial.
Channel 7 gonna sue Bruce for their rent and hooker money back.
What poor judgment, to court and shower with gifts an alleged rapist on trial.
For those unsure about the standard of proof required, extract from the judgment: 98 The concept used in subsection (1), being the “balance of probabilities”, is often misunderstood. It does not mean a simple estimate of probabilities; it requires a subjective belief in a state of facts on the part of the tribunal of fact. A party bearing the onus will not succeed unless the whole of the evidence establishes a “reasonable satisfaction” on the preponderance of probabilities such as to sustain the relevant issue: Axon v Axon (1937) 59 CLR 395 (at 403 per Dixon J). The “facts proved must form a reasonable basis for a definite conclusion affirmatively drawn of the truth of which the tribunal of fact may reasonably be satisfied”: Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 (at 305 per Dixon CJ). Put another way, as Sir Owen Dixon explained in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 (at 361), when the law requires proof of any fact, the tribunal of fact must feel an actual persuasion of its occurrence or existence before it can be found.
Wait so what’s the burden of proof? Is reasonable satisfaction on the preponderance of possibilities the same thing as the preponderance of evidence? Or is it something more?
*1091 Having escaped the lions’ den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat.* [Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) \[2024\] FCA 369 (fedcourt.gov.au)](https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca0369)
Silly Brucey 😂 🦁
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. He should have been grateful for the mysterious errant juror helping him get off scott free as the criminal trial was aborted. Instead, his momentous sense of entitlement and narcissistic worldview propelled him towards revenge… Enjoy your next criminal trial, your next set of rape allegations, ahole!
I don't think enough has been done to look into why the juror did what they did. Seems suspicious to me
He’s a rapist. Glad there’s a small bit of justice in the whole story.
I understand your sentiment here, but I think there’s an important distinction to be made. From the wonderful Hannah Ferguson of Cheekmediaco: “We can't equate this with the word justice, because these are not criminal proceedings, this isn't a criminal conviction, it's not criminal guilt. What happened today was Bruce Lehrmann, who has been accused of rape by multiple women, was not able to secure financial compensation through a civil mechanism for damage he believes he has suffered to his reputation for an allegation that the court today found to be on the balance of probabilities more likely to have occurred than not. That is a small victory, but it is not justice. I want us all to find relief in this, but I also can't stop thinking about Brittany Higgins and the millions of others, of victim-survivors in this country who know it's not safe to approach the front doors of our criminal justice system, and who know they will be shamed and silenced by the media, and who have been re-traumatised through this process, and who have watched Brittany Higgins be re-traumatised for years. What happened today was, an entitled rapist was prevented from securing financial compensation. That is a win, it's not justice.”
https://preview.redd.it/q4u87oatkkuc1.png?width=527&format=png&auto=webp&s=bea7c693c10bedb680e4a09d7b1c57faf6e74c8b This dickhead must be feeling great right now. Good life choice mate.
100% chance he's somewhere in this thread right now...
time for the bone saw…
Bloke has a far sloppy arm - maybe this is Bruce himself?
What is it with people these days bringing defamation suits when they are subject to full disclosure themselves? You cannot hide the lurid details. It’s like repeatedly punching yourself in the cock.
Best bit was when the judge said that he would have given him less than $20k if he had have found that they had defamed him, I assume because he had already impugned his own character enough 😂😂😂
The beginning of justice for Brittany I hope. Further, I look forward to costs order against him
As Justice Lee put it - he escaped the lion's den but then made the mistake of returning to get his hat. Bruce, how's it feel being hoist with your petard like this? lol.
Fuck that's a good line from the Judge!
rich people think they can get away with anything and surround themselves with people who share that worldview
This may be a stupid question but - am I right in thinking this? There was no determined verdict or outcome from the original court proceedings in 2022-2023, but he was confirmed as a rapist through his own defamation case? That he started?
As the judge said “Having escaped the lion’s den Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of coming back for his hat,”
This was a very apt summary. I hope this saying becomes common parlay now.
Read: entitled LNP fuckwit behaviour.
It’s now legal to call him a rapist.
The law has finally caught up with the truth
It's called the Ben Roberts-Smith defence.
Yes. It is an own goal of galactic proportions.
Worse than good ole Ben
Just FYI - There was no determined verdict because a jury member broke the rules of being a juror so the judge called a mistrial - and the prosecution didn’t want to put BH through the trauma of a second trial. So the rapist was hardly acquitted
Ah well with those circumstances, he must have been feeling immensely confident to go forward with the defamation case..
because he's an idiot. I think his legal team in the criminal trial knew how close they had come to a conviction
Pretty much. Went full BRS and got same result.
Never go full BRS.
> There was no determined verdict or outcome from the original court proceedings in 2022-2023, but he was confirmed as a rapist through his own defamation case? That he started? No judgement was recorded for his criminal case, ie the criminal standard of proof was not reached. A judgement has now been recorded using the civil standard (much lower), saying that on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not), Lehrmann raped Higgens. And yes, the only reason that civil judgement has now been made was because he started a defamation case.
No judgement was recorded because the jury was discharged because of improper conduct by a juror. The ACT DPP elected not to continue the retrial , stated because of concern for Brittany Higgins health. We never got to test in court whether the criminal standard of proof was met or not.
That would depend on your definition of “confirmed”. Does confirmed mean it happened? Or that it probably happened?
For civil purposes, it happened.
more likely than not" that Mr Lehrmann was "so intent upon gratification to be indifferent to Ms Higgins's consent and hence went ahead with sexual intercourse without caring whether she consented". The judge said he believed Mr Lehrmann was "hell-bent on having sex" with Ms Higgins. "I consider it more likely than not, in those early hours after a long night of conviviality and drinking and having successfully brought Ms Higgins back to a secluded place, Mr Lehrmann was hell-bent on having sex with a woman he found sexually attractive and had been passionately kissing and touching and had encouraged to drink and knew had reducing inhibitions," he said.
There is evidence he deliberately plied her with alcohol with intent. The judge isn't wrong.
Incredibly well salted curated wordsmithing from a wise judge. This will augur well presumably for BL's upcoming dates with other juries and have the Netflix's of the world scrambling to produce the mini series and sequel seasons I'm sure.
>JUDGE MICHAEL LEE: Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins. >... >Having escaped the lion's den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of coming back for his hat.
Gold!!
This thread is evidence of the fact people without a law degree make clowns of themselves when they try to weigh in on legal matters. Justice Lee is one of the best defamation judges in the country. He should, in my opinion, have been considered for a spot on the High Court. His use of the ‘balance of probabilities’, which some have taken issue with, is the standard of proof in civil proceedings and always has been. It isn’t a conviction, it’s a successful defence to defamation that the allegations have enough credence to them that publishing them isn’t unfair reputational damage. This was a very thorough and well written judgement by a talented, competent and respected Judicial official. It hopefully deters more people who narrowly escape criminal conviction in high-profile cases from bringing defamation suits against media outlets and presenters, a-la Roberts-Smith and Lehrmann.
Brilliant judgement by a totally unbiased, clear headed legal veteran. Clear. Concise. Easy to understand. Yet...here we are!
You really shouldn't rape people. It's not nice.
I'm sure there's a bunch of pro-rape conservative freaks deleting their comments rn haha.
Nope, if you go to the Australian they are doubling down. “How could a judge get it so wrong” “ I know Bruce didn’t do it” and so on. It is hard to reconcile, when a fine mind spends months listening to evidence, thinking about the law and writes it down over 350 pages but that is not enough for the folks who read the Aus
Nah, they're all here commenting
All of them thinking that as it’s a civil case Lehrmann was proven right or something
Some are doubling down and showing us they know SFA about the legal system in Aus. That plus spreading a bunch of conspiracy theories.
From the looks of it, it seems like mostly they are just doubling down aggressively. Wouldn't expect any less!
They will be doubling down.
yet again it’s shown that defamation actions are a mugs game lesson not learned from Ben Roberts-Smith I beg you Alan Jones, please start your defamation action against Nine
They aren't a mugs game if it actually was a lie lol. If you actually did the thing, then yeah suing for defamation is pretty boneheaded.
after so much cocaine and self pity, I think Bruce believes his lie
No he believes he is protected. That’s why he was so smug. He did not look smug today when he left court.
They are. Billions of instances of defamation occur throughout the world, yet only a trivial few cases are taken to court, exclusively by rich people to fuck over other rich people. It's just a game.
Can’t wait for that one. He will 100% lose lol.
He did skewer channel 10 & their lawyer pretty bad. Said the cover-up story was rubbish & the ministers chief of staff at all times did the right thing & acted with integrity. At the end of the day the stories Bruce said didn’t really make any sense.
Bruce , To Toowoomba, we ride !
Thank fuck, he’s scum. Now hopefully we don’t have to have this flooding our screens every day…
Oh, it's just getting started. His next rape case is coming up. He wasn't happy with the label "rapist" and is going for the "serial rapist" label.
[удалено]
Reckon he thought had nothing to lose. As he has close to zero chance of another well paid job. Suck shit rapist
[удалено]
Owning the libs? Protecting Australian values from wokeness?
Tried to own the libs, owned the Libs instead
Rapists like him deserve to rot
This surprises nobody, the dude has to pay for his happy endings.. I doubt he's ever had consensual relations.
It feels like its BRS all over again lmao. Once again proving Defamation Trials rarely EVER work in your favor. Suck shit rapist. He could've walked away and left it alone and vanished into obscurity based on the errant juror. But no he had to chase after channel 10. Suck shit cunt. Hope it was worth it lmao. The salt in the wound is his initials stand for BL. Bad Luck.
Are we actually allowed to call him a rapist then? It seems to fall between criminal and civil somewhere.
You certainly are. Enjoy
The judge didn't just find that it was reasonable for Ten to call him a rapist given what Ten knew - he found that he did rape her, and from that Ten was reporting on the truth. Now he happened to avoid being convicted for the rape that he did, so it would be inaccurate to refer to him as a "convicted rapist". Although I'm sure if he did come after you for defamation it would likely be found that the distinction doesn't affect that rapist's reputation, and no damages would be awarded. But you can call him a rapist, because he committed at least one rape.
Defamation trials work out every day, it's just that people are learning that you probably shouldn't sue someone for defamation if you actually did the thing other people are saying about you.
Went back for his hat. Judge is a legend.
That was the most golden statement I have heard from a judge in a long time. Surely this does become of legendary status. https://preview.redd.it/lu1mz1holmuc1.jpeg?width=1792&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cd22c490c4bc5b8b7ff4d7fc0a810ef47d9d698e
>Once again proving Defamation Trials rarely EVER work in your favor. They work all the time Bruce and BRS are just assholes. The deck was stacked towards them and they still lost.
I hope Brittany Higgins heals and is allowed space to not be hounded by the media and the rape apologists. To all the women, men and whoever out there who have been raped, sending love and hope all of you recover.
BuT tHeY'rE aLl JuSt As BaD aS eAcH oThEr! Yes, I hope the online rape apologists learn something from this but I know they won't.
Bruce will be visiting that dark place again..  With his new friends (if Ch 7 pays...)
Love all the news headlines: "Rapist leaves court". Get fucked you slimy rapist; honestly this all feels like a formality given everyone knew he raped Higgins. Glad the tax payers had to cough up to fund all these court cases, now can he please disappear into obscurity so we never have to hear about this rapist again?
I liked the Chaser's headline best. It went something like "Bruce Lehrmann succeeds in attempt to remove label of 'alleged rapist'"
Something to brighten up the mood of an absolutely dreadful news week
get this piece of shit the fuck out of here
Unfortunately the cunt is free to share our oxygen
Wonder what the people who were vigorously defending Bruce after his sabotaged trial are doing now? The amount of men and some women who were adamant he was a victim of a false charge, despite how obvious it was that he did do it, were relentless.
Moving goalposts and using conspiracy theories that they’ve read from someone in Facebook. Playing ‘both sides’. Splitting hairs.
Petitioning Howard to write him a glowing reference
They've learned nothing, convinced themselves they're the real victims and are just waiting for their next sleazebag to champion.
I for one had my doubts before this trial and I am now quite convinced that Bruce is guilty. What I didn't account for was just how unusual he is as a person - arrogant, impulsive, deceitful and self indulgent. Without this information, which eventually came out, it was hard to put all the pieces together.
We need the benefit of the doubt for our justice system to work. But too many people decided that also included attacking the credibility of a rape victim, without a hint of irony. As long as you didn't do that, then you're in the clear.
They'll probably start saying the Sydney stabbing attacks was a false flag event
[удалено]
Can't wait not to hear about this ever again
Well old mate has another rape charge, in another state from another victim to defend ....
I still don’t understand why they went to their workplace, drunk at 2.00am? Why security let them in when they were not permitted in the Ministers office? In what world would this be ok? I have not heard what security have to say about this. If BL needed his car keys wouldn’t it be normal procedure for security to escort him the whole way in and out? Can somebody enlighten me?
I can imagine people rocking up there in the middle of the night to get some stuff they need to work on something that needs to get finished wouldn't be too rare in Parliament House. But they must have seen that at least Higgins was completely out of it and that the two were not going in there for work. Would be interesting to see what the correct protocol would have been and if there have been any consequences for the security staff.
The security staff said Higgins isn't seem overly intoxicated, despite the fact she'd consumed a shit tonne of alcohol. But if they'd admitted she was as drunk as she was, they would have breached protocols and would likely be disciplined. I think they were covering their own arses
I think the problem is the security staff is so used to judging drunkenness on the Barnaby scale. They were not falling off pot plants or looking like a beetroot with high blood pressure, so they were only "moderately" pissed.
The judge said that the reason Bruce went there was because he couldn't take Britney to his gf's place and he wanted sex.
I used to know a guy who previously worked security at Parliament House and he said that the shit that goes on there would blow your mind. He quit working there because he got sick of having to turn a blind eye to the messed up things that went on there.
Bro.. I have worked at several government agencies in Sydney and as long as you have an agency issued pass, literally anything goes. I have gone back to the office on weekends, late at nights, with external guests and never been stopped.
[удалено]
Very different case. Regardless of your politics, Reynolds actually might have a reasonable case in many respects. Reynolds is alleging that she was defamed, being accused of being a roadblock against Higgins getting justice. As the Lehmann trial showed, Fiona Brown for instance was not a road block at all, and wanted to go to police. The Lehmann case on the other hand, I think most people thought he was guilty, and he was lucky to escape conviction last year. Edit: it seems that Justice Lee thought Reynolds and Morrison were unfairly treated by Ch10 in this whole saga. If anything Reynolds’ case just got stronger.
Tbf that case is completely different and Reynolds is likely to win that one.
[удалено]
Does anyone know in legal terms what ‘ring of truth’ ‘Balance of probabilities’ Means?
No but I learned the legal term for 'clusterfuck': "Omnishambolic"
Balance of probabilities is the ‘standard of proof’ meaning the test to win your case (in this case, that Network 10’s reporting that Lehrmann is a rapist was accurate). It loosely translates to more likely than not (a lot of legal caveats here). This is a civil trial where Lehrmann sued network 10 for defamation (that they ruined his reputation by ‘falsely’ claiming he was a rapist) and he deserves money to compensate him. For a criminal trial, the standard is much tougher “beyond a reasonable doubt”, which again loosely translates to a jury must be convinced that any reasonable person has no reasonable doubt the accused did the crime. In a criminal case, the punishment is jail (or fines etc). So in summary, it was an easier test to prove in a civil case that it is accurate to label him a rapist. The other side of that though, is he isn’t going to jail for this.
To take an extract directly out of the decision: >The respondents have not won because I can exclude all other possibilities as to what happened, but because they have proven that such possibilities that are open on the evidence, both individually and collectively, are unlikely; and further because I am satisfied that the evidence provides an appropriate basis upon which to reach a conclusion
https://preview.redd.it/c4u83wgwqxuc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f759d629ccaef5c1de50e029c9298986b479d969
Maybe now the rape apologists on this sub might just stfu for a day.... But prob not
I honestly didn’t think he would be found as a rapist on the balance of probabilities. Good on Justice Lee, no one “side” can claim he didn’t give everyone and every side a fair go during this whole ordeal. He has been patient, cutting through the bullshit, and delivered a well thought out decision. My only concern is that now Brittany will be held up as some beacon when in fact, whilst she is a victim, she was obfuscating the truth to make herself look more “victim-ly” along the way. I hope she gets some amount of solace from this decision, but I’m sure there will be more interviews about how brave she is and how she never once lied or altered photographs and how she was perfectly innocent throughout everything. Bruce Lehrmann can suck a big ol bag of dicks, scummy prick.
Just curious as to why you thought that? As Justice Lee said, why did he bring a drunk girl, he'd been hooking up with, back to a secledued place that he knew he had more alcohol at. You know what, he probably would have won on the balance of probability if he told closer to the truth, we were both getting pissed at a club and hooking up, I had a Gf at home I didn't tell Brittany about so suggested we come to parliament to get freaky.
The fact Bruce lies and says no sex took place even now makes him suspect too
Do you supply the bag of dicks? Or do you think chanel 7 will sort it out?
I take issue with your concerns around Brittany. While I agree their were some issues I don't hold victims of rape to such lofty standards and can understand her want to look "victim-ly" when you are a in fact a victim of sexual assault. Your just enforcing the perfect victim trope which hinders others from reporting and makes it harder for others to come forward. That's not to say there were'nt some issues, but as the judge repeated, her details remained consistent before the media got involved. The media will roll out whatever trash they think will sell papers and make them look like the moral good guys but in reality the media (and in particular channels 7 and 10) were morally repugnant in their tribalism over factual reporting (however I don't think were gonna hear that Lisa payed for any hookers and blow).
> that Lisa *paid* for any FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
New LNP preselection? Can add to his curriculum. Good addition
If OJ was a murderer after his civil trial, then Bruce is a rapist after his. Except the 'juice' ran 10000 yards in the NFL. This dude looks like he couldn't even run the 10 yards from the parliament to his car on the night in question.
[удалено]
Its an interesting analogy. The police in the OJ trial destroyed a strong case by fabricating one piece of evidence. If you want to be believed, tell it like it is.
Also some of the jury admitted they voted him innocent because of what happened to Rodney King.
Maybe now the media will shut up about it?
Or not this is a big loss to ch7 and a massive W for ch10
Fucking duh.
I for one am enjoying all the cope from mens rights activist types today
Judge: "Well done. Here are the test results: You are a horrible person. I'm serious, that's what it says: "A horrible person." We weren't even testing for that. Don't let that horrible-person thing discourage you. It's just a data point. If it makes you feel any better, science has now validated your birth mother's decision to abandon you on a doorstep."
*Googles "how to sue judge for defamation"*
Its not a criminal trial so no one is going to jail.
“He escaped the lion’s den and went back for his hat” -Justice Michael Lee
Media meddling turned this into a shitshow.
It looks like both Channel 7 and Channel 10 lose out massively from this too. So, trial by media also got hammered.
So what I take out of this is the following: Channel 7 sucks Channel 10 sucks Bruce sucks and is a rapist. Brittany sucks but doesn't deserve to be raped for sucking
Yeah the whole judgement really had a theme of “Jesus fucking Christ you all suck to different levels here, but rape is still bad, and the rest of you were not justified in your bullshit”
I’m just waiting for some smart marketing guy to come up with Lehrmann hats 🧢
Make Australia Rape Again?
No shit
This result is very satisfying 
Glad that's finally over and done with. I hate this sort of shit.
Judges mindset probs "if I look at this big fat fuck, do I think he rooted her after getting her blind drunk? Yep.. Now to write a 10,000 word essay saying that" edit to add /s because it wasn't obvious
Isn’t he going to jail for raping someone?
He has a trial coming up soon for a different rape that he is accused of committing. Considering how this judge excoriated the cunt for basically being a lying bastard, he's not likely to come across as overly credible if he tries on the usual "I'm a good man you can prove anything" defence.
Criminal cases require a higher bar than civil ones. But I think it will see him put away. And hopefully never hear his name again.
Potentially
[удалено]
Not over yet. That commonwealth payout will be subject to legal enquiry as part of the action by her old boss.
[удалено]
Yes, that's the relevant civil standard. He brought the suit, remember? This wouldn't be happening if he hadn't done so. He's not a victim in any of this.
Liberal party hires 2 people under 25, that could not make a single sensible personal decision and paid them over 200000 p/a each to be senior advisors. That's the other crime in this case. How many other self entitled idiots like this are in Canberra, paid way beyond their competency.
Just found out today that Bruce Lehrmann the rapist doesn't even have a degree. How'd he become a senior advisor to a Minister by his mid twenties? Straight out of high school and into a cushy job...
Nepotism
Who’s his daddy
It's his mother that has the power to pull strings I believe. Some US expat lobbyist or something.
His old man was some buddy of Morrisons in the same church it was stated in previous media stories.
Ohh ewww the nepotism
They talk about her salary in the case, she was on 75k……..
You really need better sources for your info. $200k?? 😂 Plss
The get paid 200k? Wtf... They're under 25, gotta be entry levelish joh within politics right? No way 200k
Arguably almost all politicians fit with this statement
Great. Is this shit over now?
No, he's facing criminal trial in Queensland for another case of rape which would have occurred during these events.
Nope he's got another rape trial coming up. Old rapey mcrape face can't help himself
"this shit" being holding a man to account for raping a woman in parliament house and the way it was dealt with by the LNP. No. He is facing other rape charges. This POS will hopefully end up in jail
Nope. Submissions on costs to come. Probably a shit fight about that. Then the inevitable High Court appeal…
Will he be jailed for harman breach?
That will be up to the ACT justice system to decide to peruse or not. It’s certainly not going to be great tho for his Queensland trial to have a judgement on record concluding he did a harman breach.
I mean this with the upmost sincerity and respect, but how can you legally pass a sentence based on no actual evidence proving he actually raped her? I understand you can use video footage to show behaviour leading up to the event to get an idea of the situation, but none of that actually proves he is guilty, I am not defending him, I'm just trying to understand how basically hearsay can condemn someone without actual evidence of the crime that he is being accused of.
Because it's determined on *the balance of probabilities* - the civil standard (there's Briginshaw, but let's not get too confusing) - rather than *beyond reasonable doubt*, the criminal standard. The judgment is well laid-out, but it's pretty damn long, so let me summate. BH and BL were 'pashing' at the bar before before they went to PH, they were intimate, and BL's stated reason for going to PH was to keep drinking. BH stated that 'BL had whisky to show me or something'. BH is visibly intoxicated on the CCTV. She's fallen over at the bar previously. She has trouble standing and can't put her shoes back on at PH. There's testimony from an expert that she was likely drunk at this point - she's at least 9 to 11 drinks in. If they're drinking straight whisky back in the suite, she's going to become *more* intoxicated. Her testimony is that she passed out, and when she came to, BL was on top of her. HH found that it was likely that they went back to PH to continue drinking/intimacy. Sex likely happened, and with the amount of alcohol she consumed plus the whisky in the suite, it is likely she was incapacitated or so close to that point that she could not reasonably consent. Ergo, BL likely raped BH.
Not hearsay at all . The matter was a civil case and the judge needed to establish from the evidence( and there was a lot ) what occurred . His judgement is there to be read . All 324 pages . There was 24 days heard in court and a myriad of documents , videos and crossing the evidence given . For multiple reasons including being an offence if you film a crime about to happen even if you are not the offender the UN report on crime will indicate how rare it is for footage to be available of a crime being committed . So naturally the around the world convictions or otherwise are determined by the evidence . The judge has done that categorically
Circumstantial evidence IS evidence. You can be convicted of murder on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
Nice try piggy. Now can she do like the trump case and sue him if he tries to publicly deny it?
Can we also now accept the story that this was a "Liberal Party coverup" was also a lie, concocted by Wilkinson and Sharaz. And in doing so, they have effectively denied her any justice to a criminal standard. To see Wilkinson celebrating this moment is truly bizarre.
You’re surprised to see Lisa Wilkinson celebrate she’s not guilty of defamation?
> Can we also now accept the story that this was a "Liberal Party coverup" was also a lie Apologies could you ELI5?
Yes I agree.But now the Reynolds defamation case could be settled out of court.
What is the motive or benefit of having sex with a nearly comatose person? Isn't sex best had with mutual movement and ah. your lover kissing you back, liking what you are doing etc? I thought in consential sex that was a "dead lay" so what is the motive of a rapist? Power, ego, is it some sort of entitled delusionment? But how the bloody hell is it enjoyable
I guess bad sex is better than no sex 🤷
It’s less about sex and more about getting off on power, humiliation and control. Like many other crimes.