Australian Politics
The DPP may be in a world of pain over disclosure
On the information now revealed it would seem that a manipulative woman made a huge profit for herself at the expense of great hurt to an innocent man. Why was there any prosecution at all? Because feminists wanted to believe her. And feminists must be placated. Drumgold is just a weak man who became a political pawn
JANET ALBRECHTSEN
On day one of the Sofronoff inquiry, material before it – and now made public – suggests the ACT Director of Prosecutions may be in a world of pain.
In his incendiary November letter to ACT chief police office Neil Gaughan, DPP Shane Drumgold said he wanted a public inquiry into the police handling of Brittany Higgins’ rape allegations against Bruce Lehrmann. He’s got that, and so much more than he surely bargained for.
Drumgold is central to this inquiry for reasons that will soon become clearer to all Australians. The most serious issues facing Drumgold, by a country mile, concern disclosure. Did the DPP disclose all material he was duty-bound to disclose to Lehrmann’s defence to ensure there was a fair trial?
Broader questions must later be asked as to whether any possible misbehaviour by Drumgold in this high-profile debacle is repeated in other cases that we never hear about. And what does that mean for the legitimacy of the criminal justice system in this country?
Disclosure obligations are critical to our criminal justice system. If a defendant, and defence lawyers, are not informed of relevant material, accused people cannot properly and fairly defend themselves when confronted by the hefty forces of police and state prosecutorial powers. Given the powers of police and the state, we demand that prosecutors be of the highest quality to ensure that fair trials are guaranteed, not a lottery.
Drumgold’s own statement, released to the public on Monday, provides a mountain of material that raises questions about whether he met his duties to disclose critical information, as the most senior legal prosecutor in the ACT. Remember, Drumgold chose to step into this role, in this case, instead of delegating to one of his staff prosecutors.
On Monday, Drumgold faced the formidable, forensic, careful inquiry team comprising counsel assisting Erin Longbottom KC and inquiry chairman Walter Sofronoff.
One of the central issues concerned a set of critical missing documents that should have been given to Lehrmann’s lawyers. These were called the Internal Review Documents, known informally as the Moller reports, after DS Scott Moller, the senior police officer who oversaw the investigation into the alleged rape.
What happened, in short, is that once Lehrmann’s lawyer became aware of the existence of the missing Moller reports, the DPP then fought tooth and nail to prevent the reports – prepared by police as part of the investigation into the rape allegation – from being disclosed to the defence.
This part of the story, like so many more to come, is incredible from the start. Lehrmann’s first lawyers at Legal Aid were told about these documents – in a disclosure certificate served on them. Schedule 1 of that statement made mention, in vague terms, of material that was not legally disclosable. Schedule 3 listed, in detail, material that was disclosable to the defence.
The Moller reports, which appeared in Schedule 3 as the Investigative Review Documents, “outlines version of events as supplied by Ms Higgins during the course of her engagements with police since 2019 against available evidence and subsequent discrepancies. Available upon request and in consultation with DPP.”
A few weeks later, after Lehrmann sacked his Legal Aid lawyers, his new lawyers received a new version of the disclosure statement. This version was very different in one critical respect – the Moller reports were no longer listed in the Schedule 3 that lists disclosable material. They were slipped into an ambiguously worded item in Schedule 1, where non-disclosable material is listed as follows: “Review of brief materials and subsequent advice/recommendations made by the DPP to ACT Policing.”
According to Steven Whybrow’s statement to the inquiry – he was Lehrmann’s barrister – this critical omission was discovered when Lehrmann’s new solicitor, Kamy Saeedi, compared the first disclosure statement that Legal Aid received, with the one he received. But for this, Lehrmann’s defence team may never have known about the existence of the Moller reports.
So, who removed the Moller reports from the disclosable part of the disclosure statement and moved them, in vague words, into the non-disclosable section. In other words, who decided to keep this critical material from the defence?
Bruce Lehrmann leaves the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal in Canberra. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman
Bruce Lehrmann leaves the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal in Canberra. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman
The DPP says in his statement to the inquiry that he “was not involved in all aspects of disclosure in the Lehrmann case.” He says he delegated to junior staff members.
He was by his own evidence involved in what happens to the Moller reports on the second Disclosure Document. Exhibits in the form of an email dated April 27 last year, attached to Drumgold’s own statement to the Inquiry, show that Drumgold told his junior staff that the Moller reports were privileged, and therefore not disclosable to the defence.
A separate file note by the same junior staffer concerning a meeting between prosecutors and junior Australian Federal Police officers to discuss, among other things, whether Moller reports are disclosable to defence, the ODPP staffer records “Conversations with Shane afterwards”: “Don’t want to disclose AFP internal documents – not relevant.”
In a series of further emails from Drumgold to his junior staff, the DPP claims that the Moller reports are not disclosable to the defence. In one he says these documents were created “for the dominant purpose of providing legal advice”.
When Lehrmann’s defence team go to court to fight for access to the Moller reports, the DPP emails junior members of his staff stating that “we need an affidavit” outlining, among other things, that the Moller reports (Drumgold calls them the Investigative Review Document) “formed a request for advice from police” thereby making them non-disclosable due to legal privilege. Drumgold’s statement sets out that “he settled affidavits of ODPP employees”.
It’s here that the DPP may find himself in all sorts of trouble. Firstly, legal privilege over these police reports is not the DPPs to claim, but is for the police to claim.
In fact, the DPP would later admit during a court battle when Lehrmann’s lawyers sought access to the omitted Moller reports that it was for the AFP to claim privilege. Yet he still fought to stop defence getting the documents.
Whybrow must have smelled a rat. Around the time of this court stoush about disclosure, Whybrow rang Moller to ask him whether these documents were created by the AFP for the dominant purpose of seeking legal advice from the DPP. If they were, then privilege would have been attached to them.
The inquiry will hear that, according to Whybrow’s statement, and a file note dated September 13 last year that he made of that conversation, Moller said these critical documents were not created for the purpose of getting legal advice and that they should be disclosed to the defence. They agreed that Whybrow would seek them by subpoena. And that is how Lehrmann’s defence lawyers finally received the Moller reports.
Recorded in the same file note, Whybrow says, presciently, to Moller: “I suspect the trial is going to be a bloodbath and that when it’s over it won’t be the end of it and there will undoubtedly be inquiries afterwards as to how and why it was able to get this far.”
That was two weeks before the trial started.
After the mistrial, parts of the Moller reports were revealed by The Australian on December 3. Just days later, Drumgold released his explosive letter to police chief Gaughan that demanded an inquiry to The Guardian newsite. The release of that information was made in a response to an FOI application by The Guardian.
It’s small fish to point out that Drumgold’s own statement concedes he got into trouble by ordering the release of this letter at the time. We can revisit that at another stage. Suffice to say Drumgold made a mess of that FOI request, had to apologise to the AFP and arranged “training”, including for himself.
What matters is that Drumgold tried to keep the Moller reports, which runs to more than 60 pages from the defence. It is explosive reading, detailing page after page of discrepancies that police discovered when investigating the allegation by Higgins that she was raped in the early hours of March 2019 in the parliamentary office of then-senator Linda Reynolds.
This inquiry is not about revisiting the credibility of either Higgins or Lehrmann. What matters now – six months after the DPP shocked many with controversial public comments that he would not retry Lehrmann even though he believed he could win at a second trial – is whether the DPP behaved as a minister of justice, making decisions objectively at every stage, exercising his duties dispassionately at every stage, to ensure that Lehrmann was given a fair trial last October.
The inquiry, now under way, gives a telling insight into how Drumgold viewed senior AFP officers and, by connection, his role as prosecutor.
The DPP makes a series of extraordinary claims, page after page, in his statement about senior AFP officers, naming them, accusing them of pressuring him not to prosecute, of over-investigating the rape complaint, of attempting to assist the defence and undermine the prosecution. How AFP senior officers and the DPP work together in the future is a live issue.
To give a sense, here are a few examples. Drumgold says he had “never” had officers of such senior rank as DS Scott Moller and DI Marcus Boorman be involved in briefings to the AFP. Drumgold says he felt pressure to agree with police concerns about the case.
There is another way to view their involvement: given even the then-prime minister involved himself in this rape allegation, its possible very senior police thought it only appropriate that they wear any heat from a national scandal, rather than more junior officers.
When Drumgold received parts of the Moller reports in June 2021, he said he had “never” before received a brief like this one, where police focused on discrepancies and weaknesses in a prosecution case. Specifically, when Drumgold read part of the Moller reports that described Higgins as “evasive, unco-operative and manipulative” Drumgold said he had “never seen comments of this nature of a police brief”.
There is another view: any sensible prosecutor should want to know all the weaknesses in a prosecution case before going to trial. Seen in that light, the DPP could have viewed the discrepancy analysis in the Moller reports as helpful to his role to determine the truth. After all, the last thing a prosecutor wants is to be blindsided at trial.
After Drumgold learnt from Whybrow that Moller told Whybrow that the Moller reports “were definitely not produced for legal advice and that it should be produced [to defence]” Drumgold said he “formed the view that DS Moller actively wanted to disclose to the defence his case commentary including his perceived weakness in the case. This appeared to be a further example of what I perceived to be as ongoing assistance to the defence by police.”
There is a different view: he should have agreed to disclose the Moller reports to the defence rather than defence lawyers having to battle so hard to get these documents that analyse and investigate possible discrepancies.
The upshot of the DPP’s statement is that throughout this tawdry saga, the DPP appeared to view police conduct through a prism of them pressuring him and undermining his prosecution. Instead, he could have viewed police conduct as part of a search for truth and providing the warning signs that he should have a prosecutor.
While the relationship between the DPP and the AFP is fascinating and important, what will be more critical to this inquiry is whether the DPP used his position as the most senior law officer to keep material from the defence. There is a lot more to come on that fundamental duty.
**************************************************
Old picture prompts flood of nostalgia for old hardware stores
Being in my 80th year, I too remember the old hardware stores and their high prices. I remember that when you went in there, all the staff would be very busy serving other customers and you had to wait a long time for attention. You could get in and out quickly only if you could find the item you wanted on the shelves yourself. And I have found that Bunnings staff can always point me in the right direction without delay
Memories of old Australian hardware stores have prompted a flood of nostalgia, while triggering bitter criticism of their huge, modern-day chain equivalents like Bunnings.
A picture of an old hardware store, recently shared on social media, led to hundreds of users sharing their recollections of hardware stores that have now sadly become a thing of the past.
The photograph, believed to be taken in the Nock and Kirby store in George Street, central Sydney, shows three men standing behind a glass-fronted counter with row-upon-row of wooden shelves filled with DIY items behind them.
The image of a world now all but disappeared prompted users to lament the decline of the 'one-on-one service' they offered and the knowledge their owners had.
'They had everything,' one said.
Another added: 'And they knew their stock range and what product was best for the job!'
'I also loved visiting the hardware shop with my father. You could buy the exact quantity of what you needed. 'You want 8 wood screws you got 8 in a little paper bag, not 20 in a plastic pack that lives for 300 years in landfill.
'Had one near me: An old shop run by a nearly as old lovely man. You could buy practically everything you needed. I don’t think he even knew some of the stock he had.
'It was great fun to go in and find things on the dusty shelves and all the little drawers he had It was the sort of place you’d go to find something Bunning's didn’t have.'
One person recalled an old shop their father would visit in Parramatta, western Sydney. 'Dad would go there to get odd things and they always had it and knew their trade - not like Bunnings where nobody knows where anything is or what's it used for,' they said.
Another blamed Bunnings for the demise of traditional hardware stores. 'Bunnings basically killed all our local hardware stores along with the great service that ... (they) had.
'Local hardware stores knew what they were selling unlike Bunnings (where) they can’t event point u to the right aisles,' they added.
However, one user defended the retail giant. 'Bunnings staff are awesome, I remember the old places and they were rude half the time,' they wrote.
And another user was more circumspect in their criticism and suggested the blame for the demise of these stores also lay with the consumer.
'Well if everybody didn’t go to Bunnings all of those small shops would still be around,' they said.
Last month, Bunnings was accused of 'anti-competitive' behaviour over a secret plan to buy up at least seven Mitre 10 stores.
Scott Marshall, the outgoing CEO of Metcash's food division, slammed Bunnings in a recent submission to the federal parliament's select committee on the cost of living.
In addition to its grocery wholesale business, Metcash owns the Mitre 10 hardware chain, with stores run by individual owners as part of a national cooperative.
Mr Marshall told the committee major businesses were trying to buy up independent Mitre 10 stores and primarily pinned the 'anti-competitive' practice on Bunnings.
'Currently, Metcash is aware of Bunnings writing to at least seven Mitre 10 businesses asking them to consider entering negotiations to sell their store to Bunnings,' he said in his submission.
The comments came two weeks after Daily Mail Australia revealed that an independent Mitre 10 store in Byron Bay was closing its doors for good.
Its closure makes it the latest victim of so-called big box business - after a previous report predicted that more than 6000 independent retailers were set to close by 2024 because of bigger firms like Bunnings.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/bunnings-australia-problem-aussies-are-ignoring/ar-AA1aSfEl
***************************************************WA government dreams an impossible climate dream
Western Australia’s biggest electricity system will need to roughly triple in size over the next 20 years, as the state seeks to wean itself off fossil fuels and go green.
In a landmark report released today, the WA government outlined the massive scale of building that would be required to replace coal-fired power stations and meet surging demand from customers — particularly industry — electrifying their operations.
WA Energy Minister Bill Johnston revealed an extra 4,000km of new high-voltage transmission lines would need to be built by 2042 under the government’s central plans.
Within the same time frame, Mr Johnston said peak demand for electricity from the state’s main grid — the South West Interconnected System (SWIS) — would treble to about 13,000 megawatts.
The minister also revealed the amount of generation capacity in the system would need to jump by a factor of 10 to account for rocketing demand and the intermittent nature of wind and solar power.
Despite the monumental scale of the flagged expansion, Mr Johnston said just $126 million would be initially set aside to help “kickstart early network planning”.
Mr Johnston said the report, titled the SWIS Demand Assessment, would be the blueprint to guide the overhaul of WA’s biggest grid, which covers Perth and much of the state’s southern half.
“The SWIS Demand Assessment provides a vision of what the future grid might look like as industry seeks to decarbonise,” Mr Johnston said.
“An expanded grid is the most cost-efficient way of supporting decarbonisation as it can reach further for wind and solar.
“The SWIS cannot rely on other electricity systems to support it, so having a strong transmission backbone is critical for reliable supply.”
Cost of plans unclear
Under the plans outlined by Mr Johnston, several new high-voltage transmission lines would need to be built to connect renewable energy zones, particularly in windy and sunny areas north of current SWIS footprint.
However, Mr Johnston said how much the upgrades would cost and how they would be paid for — and by whom — were still open questions.
The minister acknowledged that big industrial users, such as mineral processors and manufacturers, would ideally help pay for the work.
He noted it was these customers who would drive much of the extra demand on the grid by using electricity — rather than fossil fuels such as gas — to power their operations.
According to Mr Johnston, it would be unfair to spread the costs of the required upgrades on to household and business customers who contributed much less to the increase in demand.
While anticipating a massive increase in the amount of renewable energy, Mr Johnston argued gas would continue to play a key role in keeping the system stable.
But he insisted this would not derail efforts to decarbonise the WA economy, noting electrification of gas-heavy industrial processes would have a much bigger effect.
'Transition plan does not work': Opposition
Speaking after the announcement, Shadow Energy spokesman Steve Thomas said today's report was embarrassing for the government.
"This document demonstrates that their transition plan does not work," he said.
"It's not costed, it's not funded, and it can't deliver the transition that government is talking about, and this document actually reinforces that."
Dr Thomas said he expected the total cost of the state's transition away from coal to be closer to $15 billion – with the 4,000 kilometres of new transmission infrastructure accounting for about $8 billion of that.
"You'd think with the biggest surpluses, the greatest boom in our history, if you were going to transition the electricity system you might have the money to do it, but the government has not invested anything like the amount of money necessary," he said.
"They've got the time frame wrong, they've got the infrastructure requirements wrong, they've got the budget wrong, there's not much they've actually got right on the transition to renewable energy and at this stage it will not work."
The ability to cope with the loss of generation that closing coal by 2029 would have was another significant issue, according to Dr Thomas, as well as finding the people and resources to drive the transition in a globally-competitive market.
***************************************************
Government braces for potential Australia Post bailout as budget lists it as new contingent liability
They only seem to deliver on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays in my area. That may become universal in cities
The federal government has conceded for the first time that it might have to financially prop up Australia Post as the mail carrier hurtles towards its first financial loss in a decade, which could potentially punch a hole of hundreds of millions of dollars in the government’s finances.
Buried in the budget papers released on Tuesday night, the government has listed under its summary of contingent liabilities in its statement of risks a new entry for Australia Post under the heading “Australia Post’s financial sustainability”.
While Australia Post traditionally is self funding and doesn’t rely on the taxpayer to bail it out of losses and has its own balance sheet to borrow funds, if needed, the mail carrier too could ultimately call on its political masters and the parliament for financial aid if needed.
“Given Australia Post’s deteriorating financial position, there is a risk that the Australian government will need to consider providing financial assistance to Australia Post in the future,” the budget papers said.
Only last month, Australia Post chief executive Paul Graham warned in a speech to the American Chamber of Commerce that the organisation was heading for a significant loss this financial year as its loss-making mail service drained it of funds.
Mr Graham warned that unless major reforms to the Act which Australia Post operated under were made by parliament the mail service could face a similar financial disaster witnessed by other mail organisations such as in Canada which was looking down the barrel of losses of in excess of $1bn.
Draining it of money and causing widening losses in particular, the mail boss claimed, was its community service obligations such as delivering mail to people’s homes daily through the week, the complex and arduous process in getting stamp prices lifted to cover costs and the placement of Australia Post offices around the country.
That operating model is now under public review with submissions recently sent to the government.
The widening losses experienced by its traditional letters business could force the taxpayer to bail out Australia Post, Mr Graham warned, as it was forced to operate under a model created in the 1980s before the invention of the internet and mobile phones that had revolutionised communications but saddled Australia Post with extra costs.
Now that warning has been heeded by government as Australia Post faces its first financial loss since 2014 with the national mail carrier appearing in budget papers as a new contingent liability.
“Australia Post is a Government Business Enterprise wholly owned by the Commonwealth Government. In 2022–23, Australia Post is expected to report a full financial year loss, the first annual loss since 2014–15, as the digitisation of the global and national economy changes how many people and businesses use postal and related services,” the budget papers report.
“Australia Post does not receive financial support from the Australian Government, but is required to meet a range of Community Service Obligations.”
The government is undertaking public consultation to inform development of balanced changes to ensure postal services meet the needs of the Australian community both now and into the future, the budget papers said.
Australia Post has submitted its own submission to the government review and although it and Mr Graham have not revealed what proposals they had made it is believed the mail carrier will ask for changes to the Act. Those could allow it to deliver letters less than five days a week as well as other community service obligations reform that will halt the loss-making trajectory of its letters arm.
************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************
Evelyn Rae, a conservative Australian political commentator
Margo Robbie -- a beautiful australian
My son Joe at ANU
One of the happiest pictures ever -- Cleo Smith, aged 4
No comments:
Post a Comment