this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
151 points (99.3% liked)

Australia

3613 readers
58 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @[email protected] who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @[email protected] and @[email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Is there any way this could have gone worse for him?

Coulda been a full Oscar Wilde and resulted in charges being brought back to him after they had otherwise already been dropped.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago

When Mr Lehrmann faced criminal trial for sexual assault in the ACT Supreme Court in 2022, he was provided with material that both parties could have used to mount their arguments.

This material was not meant to be made public, because it was never used in open court. This is known as the Hearne v Street obligation.

However, it aired on the Seven Network's exclusive Spotlight interview with Mr Lehrmann.

Mr Lehrmann repeatedly gave evidence in his defamation case, on at least four occasions, that he did not provide Seven with anything more than an interview.

Justice Lee said he was "satisfied" Mr Lehrmann made false representations to the court about at least part of this material.

"In the absence of any other explanation, the inescapable conclusion is that Mr Lehrmann provided access to Mr Llewellyn to the relevant photographs," he said.

While conceding he was "not some sort of roving law enforcement official", Justice Lee left the door open for another court to pursue the alleged breach of the Hearne v Street obligation.

There seems to be a potential new path of legal inquiry here aside from any potential new case by the ACT. Punishments aren’t severe, but he could basically be found in contempt of court and fined or (unlikely) imprisoned.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-15/act-bruce-lehrmann-defamation-trial-judgment-five-key-takeaways/103706716