The Brittany Higgins Case: A New Hearing Concerning the Bruce Lerman Trial

The ACT Supreme Court will hold a closed hearing on December 2 on a motion related to the impeachment of Bruce Lehrmann.

The media will be prohibited from attending the due process hearing and from reporting on the matter of the request.

Following inquiries from, the Court issued a statement today confirming that the Court will hear an application in proceedings on 2 December 2022.

For the first time, the ACT Supreme Court also identified a number of non-publication orders issued in connection with the application:

First, in accordance with Section 111(2) of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, the Court will prevent the publication of the content of the lawsuit filed on November 22, 2022 and the publication of evidence to be presented in support of the application;

Secondly, pursuant to Section 111(4) of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, all but court personnel, legal representatives and parties remain outside the courtroom to hear the application for action filed on November 22, 2022.

Brittany Higgins emotional speech

Last month, the ACT High Court struck back after lawyers for Mr Lerman reported Brittany Higgins’ emotional speech outside the ACT High Court to police for consideration of whether it could constitute contempt of court.

There is no indication that a closed hearing related to this complaint.

The Supreme Court has stated that it does not engage in public discourse about observations made by any participant in the legal proceedings.

Mr. Lerman’s defense attorney, Steve Wybro, confirmed that he had referred the matter to the police.

“As we left court this morning, I indicated to the assembled media that given that this matter was still ongoing and a February 20, 2023 date was set for any retrial, it would be inappropriate and irresponsible to make any further comment at this point,” he said.

“I understand that the Complainant and other members of her support team were all sitting in court this morning when the Chief Justice dismissed the jury and made strong comments about people making statements or comments that could harm a fair trial.

“Despite the complainant’s warning, the complainant proceeded to deliver what appeared to be a pre-prepared speech to the media outside the court.”

“We have brought these comments to the attention of the Court and the Australian Federal Police, and it is not appropriate for Mr Lerman or his counsel to make any comment as to whether the complainant’s statements might amount to contempt of the Court’s offenses against the DC Criminal Code.

Earlier, Ms Higgins announced she felt “on trial” in the aborted court proceedings over her alleged rape in a statement outside the ACT Supreme Court.

After five days of deliberation, the jury in Lerman’s trial aborted Thursday after accusing the juror of misconduct.

Mr. Lerman pleaded not guilty and his lawyer said no sexual contact took place.

Surrounded by supporters including her mother Kelly Higgins, friend Emma Webster and partner David Schraz, she also thanked health workers in Canberra for saving her life.

“I choose to speak out loud,” said Mrs. Higgins.

“To talk and share my experiences with others.”

Juror misconduct disrupted the first trial

The first trial in October was aborted after an allegation of misconduct by a juror.

In a footnote to a written judgment by ACT Chief Justice Lucy McCallum, it was revealed that after the juror was discharged, the sheriff found two additional documents that should not have been in the jury room.

The chief justice questioned the juror in closed court on Thursday, with the media excluded, to ensure there was no breach of laws prohibiting juror identification.

What the bailiff found in the jury room

The Chief Justice of the ACT Supreme Court said it was an “accidental” discovery by the court’s police officers.

“I heard evidence this morning that during the routine arranging of the jury room by three sheriff’s officers after proceedings concluded yesterday, one of the officers accidentally knocked a juror’s dossier on the floor,” she said.

“Jury document folders are plastic boxes with a clear front.

When the officer picked up the box to replace it on the chair from which it had fallen, he noticed part of the title page of an academic research paper, the source of which indicated that the subject of the paper might be sexual assault.

The matter was immediately brought to my attention. The jury’s document box was not opened.

However, by researching the history and publisher of the paper (which was visible through the cover), my colleagues have been able to determine what appears to be the article in question. The identity of the paper which my colleagues found in evidence this morning has been confirmed by the juror in question to be the paper in a box. their documents.

The subject matter of the newspaper is, in fact, sexual assault. Specifically, it is a discussion of the futility of attempting to quantify the prevalence of false complaints of sexual assault and a deeper, research-based analysis of the causes of both false complaints and the skepticism of confronting real complaints.”

More is coming

Originally published as New Twist on the trial of Bruce Lerman, man accused of raping Brittany Higgins

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *