The US JAG corps., has gone rogue . This US detachment working well in Australia under the Obama rainbow flag.

White conservative Christian male? The JAG corps., are after you!

Currently on display in the US military, doing an efficient job on expunging WCC’s from its ranks. BLM.

Wake up call to the West, owned and controlled by lawyers pushing rainbow ideology from its toxic high nest .

Great news for justice and decency. Justice for Drumgold shouldn't end with forced resignation. And other heads, including politicians and one particular bureaucrat should roll. It's a waste of time suggesting the ABC should be penalised, given that the political duopoly is frightened of it.

Now is the time to overturn Higgins' payout out and put it toward compensation for Lehrmann.

We have yet to see Sofronoff's report, but his comment that it was right to charge Lehrmann is certainly peculiar. As are his remarks on the 'mental health' of a person who is looking colder and more vicious with time.

The justice system is in tatters. Throw in the Voice, climate hysteria, censorship of free speech, the increasing arrogance of the political class, and the maniacal media, we will soon be allied with Russia and Communist China.

So some questions.

After it has been acknowledged that Detective Inspector Marcus Boorman deliberately deleted 2 notable paragraphs of a document by other police accusing Bruce Lehrmann of lying why does he still have a job? The edited document was sent to higherups to determine the prospect of rape charges against Lehrmann.

Those paragraphs were:

"The version of events do not seem plausible. The suggestion that two people enter and office at that time of evening and have no further interaction seems unlikely;

However, given the intense media interest in this matter, it is possible that Mr Lehrmann felt he had to lie to investigators or he would be arrested."

Secondly, why did the chair of the ACT investigation Walter Sofronoff send the report to Janet Albrechtsen, a hard right winger who has been vigourously attacking Higgins and defending Lehrmann? Is the potential 'leaking' of such a significant report a criminal offence under section 17 of the ACT Inquiries Act 1991? Did Sofronoff really expect the Murdoch press to respect any kind of embargo given their history? Why shouldn't some people be entitled to feel this may have been done to ensure Albrechtsen's perspective on the findings had clear airtime?

Finally Justice Lee's judgement says "Consistently with his oral evidence, Mr Lehrmann was fashioning some of his comments to suit the perceived exigencies of the moment. It was understandably put to Mr Lehrmann on several occasions that the logic of his evidence was that he had been “fabricating” advice and “lying” to his interlocutors. In large part, these characterisations were accepted."

Why is he believed on anything?

Disagree with the bulk of this blatantly biased rubbish. And a masterclass in, I believe, how to misinform and bastardise the truth.

The legal system is not concerned with daylight or ventilating the truth. Just about winning!

If the almighty irrefutable truth mattered at all, we would deploy new space unbeatable covertly deployed lie detectors!

And the very last thing this, I believe, too clever by half, "author/(!)" and the majority of the legal profession want!?

We cannot legally retry the Britany Higgins case. It's over, done and dusted! The young man accused in this case, has walked virtually scot free.

Only his family and a still persecuted Miss Higgins have paid/are paying with lifelong negative outcomes and harm no amount of compensation can compensate.

My mother raised me to consider the consequences of my actions before embarking on them.

And if romance and a sexual encounter was contemplated? I needed to ask myself this question. Do I want this woman to be the mother of my children?

No amount of (born to rule) privilege or wealth should obviate this question!
Alan B.

What, SteeleRedux says!
Alan B.

"Now is the time to overturn Higgins' payout out and put it toward compensation for Lehrmann."

I support this.
If there's no trial and no finding of guilt...
- Then the only matter is compensation for Lehrmanns defamation.

Regardless of whether he did it or not;
'Innocent until PROVEN guilty.'
- It's better that a guilty person goes free than an innocent person be convicted.

"Secondly, why did the chair of the ACT investigation Walter Sofronoff send the report to Janet Albrechtsen,"

She also sent it to the ABC, who proceeded to do nothing with it until Albrechtsen wrote it up. I guess she assumed the ABC would want to keep it viewership informed. A rather foolish assumption.

The report also found that the police had done a thorough investigation which resulted in a sound case that there was insufficient evidence to charge Lehrmann.

Its rare that officials suffer consequences for their flouting of the law and rules. This is a rare example and one we can only hope will be repeated.

Dear mhaze,

Mate you probably need to park this one as you seem utterly out of your depth.

Firstly Walter Sofronoff is a he not a she.

Secondly he handed the report over to both the ABC and Albrechtsen before he handed it to the government who had commissioned the bloody thing.

"Guardian Australia has confirmed that Walter Sofronoff KC, the chair of the inquiry, provided copies of the report under embargo to the ABC and the Australian, under the condition that they not publish its contents until after it had been released by the ACT government. The findings were sensationally published by the Australian on Wednesday night."
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/03/inquiry-into-lehrmann-prosecution-sent-report-to-media-without-authorisation-act-government-says

He really should ever get to head an inquiry again.

At least Arndt admits that Sofronoff concluded that Drumgold was right to pursue the prosecution. But she completely misrepresents what he said about Heidi Yates. He did not “let her off the hook” because he was “constrained by the narrow terms of reference”. He applauded her behaviour as being “consistent with her statutory duty as well as with human decency”. Arndt also fails to mention that Sofronoff says Yates was subject to “unjustified public criticism” by people suffering “a general lack of understanding of what the law required her to do.” That’s you, Bettina.

The Sarah-Jane Parkinson case was indeed shocking, but Arndt seems to miss the most obvious reason why a woman “actually being punished for faking rape and violence” is an “exceedingly rare event” – that fake allegations of this nature are exceedingly rare events. Alas, we know that men actually committing rape and violence, and not getting punished for it, is far, far too common.

https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/0375553f-0395-46cc-9574-d54c74fa601a/aihw-fdv-5.pdf.aspx?inline=true#:~:text=The%20rate%20of%20finalised%20defendants,less%20than%201%20per%20100%2C000.

SteeleRedux

As mhaze points out it was given to other media outlets including the ABC, so it was hardly a case of selective leaking to a sympathetic journalist. Furthermore, The Australian sat on the report for a week before publishing, which supports its argument that it published only after another source leaked a copy. If it had no intention of honouring the embargo, it would have published immediately to be sure of having an exclusive scoop.

I think it is important to distinguish the issue of Drumgold’s conduct of the case - which was clearly a disgrace – from the matter of Lehrmann’s guilt or innocence, which only two people know for certain. Arndt is wrong to imply that Drumgold’s misconduct means the prosecution should not have proceeded. But both Higgins and Lehrmann have suffered significant damage from the way this story has unfolded; and one of them has also suffered massive injustice.

"He really should ever get to head an inquiry again."

Well I agree it was a job well done, but heading inquiries 'ever'. Well let's not get carried away. Typo? People in glass houses.....

Dear Rhian,

You claim: "As mhaze points out it was given to other media outlets including the ABC, so it was hardly a case of selective leaking to a sympathetic journalist."

Who were the other media outlets besides the ABC and Albrechtsen? I have read of no other.

The report has been officially released now and the ABC reports: "The government also said it was seeking advice as to whether the release of the report by the board of inquiry to select media organisations may have "constituted a breach of the Inquiries Act 1991 and if any further action is required"."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-07/act-government-publicly-releases-walter-sofronoff-inquiry-report/102696656

I'm not sure why the first instinct is to stick up for the Murdoch paper and what of the actions of the judge?

You claimed: "Furthermore, The Australian sat on the report for a week before publishing, which supports its argument that it published only after another source leaked a copy."

But Ardnt is is saying they sat on it for a day.

"Disgracefully, the ACT government had chosen to sit on the report since it was submitted last week but Sofronoff ensured it found its way into the hands of journalists at The Australian, Janet Albrechtsen and Stephen Rice – as well as the ABC, which did nothing with it for that first day."

So a day rather than a week.

Even Ardnt is wrong on this too as apparently the report was released to the two media outlets before it was handed to the government.

In my judgement the release by the judge specifically to Albrechtsen was as premeditated as hell. He would have known the ABC play by the rules far more than Murdoch papers and would have banked on the inevitable. Higgins has some powerful players working against her.

Dear mhaze,

Yes a typo. Should have been never.

'Corrupt judge Walter Sofronoff, who faces up to 6 months jail and owns a plane at Toowoomba airport, has gone into hiding

BY SHANE DOWLING ON AUGUST 7, 2023

Walter Sofronoff has gone into hiding after illegally leaking the ACT Inquiry Report to Bruce Lehrmann’s favourite propagandist at News Corp’s The Australian Janet Albrechtsen and the ABC even before he handed the Report to the ACT government.'

https://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2023/08/07/corrupt-judge-walter-sofronoff-who-faces-up-to-6-months-jail-and-owns-a-plane-at-toowoomba-airport-has-gone-into-hiding/

Dear Andreas Smith,

Gone "into hiding" might be overblowing it a little but the judge certainly has a case to answer in my opinion.

This is Geoffrey Watson SC, Director of the Centre for Public Integrity and a former council assisting the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption speaking to Hamish McDonald on RN. He was very scathing of Sofronoff saying Drumgold had been denied procedural fairness.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/act-chief-prosecutor-resigns-after-sofronoff-probe/102695506?utm_campaign=abc_radionational&utm_content=link&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_source=abc_radionational

Good to see a flicker of integrity ! I just hope they do the same with the Robodebt culprits !

Dear SteeleRedux

Yes, you are right, it was only released to those two outlets. I misread a Guardian Australia article as saying they that had seen the report, but I was mistaken.

The Australian is Australia’s only national newspaper, the ABC is its pre-eminent news broadcaster. One leans right ideologically, the other left. They are the obvious choices if pre-embargo copies are to be provided to the media.

The Report was handed to the ACT government on 31 July, and was apparently shared with the two news organisations the day before. The Australian published it on 3 August. So not quite a week, but more than a day. According to The Australian, it did not breach the embargo but published the story once it had been leaked from another source. If they intended to break the embargo, I believe they would have acted sooner. My guess is that it was leaked by someone in the bureaucracy or legal fraternity who was appalled, as many people were, by the government’s decision to keep the report secret for a whole month. The ACT government was naïve if it thought such an explosive report of significant national interest could be kept under wraps for that long. It is unfortunate that neither Drumgold nor the police saw the report before it was leaked, but that was surely the ACT Government’s responsibility. Both deserved to be told of the findings as soon as they were delivered.

Higgins and Lehrmann have powerful enemies, and powerful friends. Both have been used cynically and unfairly, sometimes by their purported allies as well as their opponents. Lehrmann may be entitled to compensation for the way Drumgold conducted the case. Whether he is guilty or innocent, Lehrmann is entitled to fair treatment; and so is Higgins. Unfortunately, partisans on both sides seem to feel their cause is so noble they are justified in vilifying the other party and trampling on their rights to legal, and natural, justice

It seems fairly clear that Sofronoff had strong reservations about the report ever being released in full. After all, the ACT government has/had all sorts of reasons why they would want to suppress certain aspects, from trying to protect Drumgold to not giving Lehrmann's team even more ammunition in the purported case against the ACT government.

He ensured that the government had no choice other than to release the full report, consequences be damned. Forcing governments to do the right thing is, of course, frowned on in certain circles, hence all the talk about 'getting' Sofronoff.

‘Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive,’.
Very prescient of Scott.

It was interesting to see ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr interviewed on 7:30 last night. He complained that the leaking of the Sofronoff report was feeding a media circus, and admitted that the inquiry always had political dimensions.

What hypocrisy. The inquiry was always political because that’s what Drumgold and the ACT government wanted it to be. It was initiated because Drumgold wanted it, making a series of allegations that all proved to be false – not least the claim of political interference, in an effort to further the vicious and unfounded attacks on Linda Reynolds. The whole point was to manufacture a media circus. Unfortunately for Drumgold and the ACT government, that media circus didn’t quite take the form they hoped for. So now the government is trying to shoot the messenger in the hope of deflecting attention from its own malice and deficiencies.

Mhaze

You may be right that Sofronoff released embargoed copies because he suspected that the ACT government would otherwise not release the report in full. That may well have been a well-founded suspicion – the government had strong political and financial motives to suppress at least parts of the report, and their stated intention of not releasing it for a month after they received it suggests at least that they wanted time to plan a strategy to contain the political fallout. The fact that they did not share copies of the report with either Drumgold or the police as soon as they received it is also suggests panicked damage control.

But even if that suspicion was well-founded, it was probably a dumb thing to do by Sofronoff. It could have breached the ACT’s Inquiries Act, and has allowed the ACT government and its media and political allies to shift attention from the content of the report to the manner of its release.

Dear Rhian and mhaze,

Under the ACT Inquiries Act it was the responsibility of the Inquiry to send a draft to any person who had adverse findings made against them and for their response to be included in the final report.

Under the same Act the government had one month to consider the report and then choose whether to release it in full. If they chose not to then they would have to explain their reasoning to parliament.

Sofronoff may well have felt justified in leaking after that period but to have done it before he had even handed it to the government, particularly to a specific Murdoch opinion writer who has maintained a constant and at times vicious defence of Lehrmann smacks of something else.

Anybody claiming Lehrmann wasn’t afforded due process can’t in any way support what Sofronoff did without being deeply hypocritical.

The report can be found here: http://www.justice.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/2263980/ACT-Board-of-Inquiry-Criminal-Justice-System-Final-Report-31-July-2023.pdf

Dear Steeleredux

I agree Sofronoff should not have given embargoed copies of his report to journalists, whatever his motives.

The ACT government was legally entitled to not release the report for up to a month, but given the intense public interest in the case, and its importance, it had no reasonable basis to keep it secret for that long, as many commentators observed at the time:

https://citynews.com.au/2023/no-reasonable-reason-to-delay-sofronoff-inquiry-findings/

It must surely also have realised that there was a risk of such a report leaking to the media. I am still inclined to believe The Australian’s claim that it received a copy of the report from a source other than Sofronoff, and only then published its findings.

The Inquiry did as it was obliged to do and gave affected parties copies of possible adverse findings in advance of publication, and sought submissions on them. So while Drumgold may not have seen the final report before it was published, its contents would hardly have been a surprise.

Dear Rhian,

You say: "it had no reasonable basis to keep it secret for that long".

It did have reasonable grounds. Sofronoff was quite clear that he was working to a timetable which didn't allow him to pass the final draft to those who had adverse findings made against them. Therefore he set out a range of likely scenarios and gave them to the people implicated. Pretty unsatisfactory with what was at stake, but perhaps forgivable if those people had a chance to review the final report and respond accordingly after it was handed to the government. The month's grace would have allowed for that but Sofronoff denied them that opportunity.

This was an abuse of due process by any fair measure and showed scant regard for the prescriptions within the Act.

I have read some of the report and I feel Drumgold was unfairly treated by Sofronoff.

Sofronoff makes light of the fact that the police handed over Higgin's counselling session notes to the defence.

Highly irregular, even more so in the case of rape, yet Sofronoff gives the police an understanding pat on the back while berating Drumgold for making a fuss about it.

186 "Detective Leading Senior Constable Madders did not appreciate that Ms Higgins’ confidential counselling records and the audio recordings of her EICIs were included in the brief. He did not realise that the personal contact information of Ms Higgins and three other
individuals had been imperfectly redacted in seven documents so that the redactions were reversible.

189. On 6 August 2021, the brief of evidence was provided to Mr Korn and the ODPP containing the counselling notes and the EICI recordings.
190. The police did not tell Mr Drumgold that they had served the brief of evidence directly upon Mr Korn. Mr Drumgold found out about this by speaking to Mr Korn on 16 September 2021.

Sofronoff's response? "ACTP officers would benefit from training on the importance in protecting a complainant’s counselling records". But apparently Drumgold seeking more was 'unprofessional'?

As the months have rolled by, I have been made aware that almost endless bad behaviour has been taking place around me.
I am not sure who did what to whom, if at all, but it all sounds rather murky.
I am forced to observe: 'oh what a tangled web.....'
And a lot of this seems to centre around 'hurt feelings'.
Hurt feelings belong, maybe, in a very close and personal relationship.
Everyday life is more like a business.
There are no close friendships. No hurt feelings. Just logical dealings.
All this 'hurt feelings' nonsense has grown out of proportion.
And all because someone, somewhere, found they could benefit from exaggerating it.
I fear there are many in our population who are being led around by the nose by the purveyors of such lies.
People are being brain washed in to believing it is right.
How about a bit of logic and common sense for a change?
Stop pretending to be mortally wounded when someone corrects you?
That would be a good start.
Time for another war to clear the decks and get a proper sense of balance?
Ask the people in Ukraine what they think?
I will bet they are not moaning about hurt feelings.
They have very important and very real things to do.
They are fighting for their existence, and only serious things matter.

Ipso Fatso,
If only we could make the Govt funded cocoon dwelling crowd to see reality !

Well a little reality at lass, in just one small area.

Now if we could only get some on the looming immigration catastrophe, & the global warming scam it would help.