501 Having made a collection of factual findings main as much as the entry of Mr Lehrmann and Ms Higgins into the Ministerial Suite, identified what had motivated them to return back to the Suite, and as to elements of their accounts of what then occurred, on this part I’ll: first, establish and consider five incontrovertible information; secondly, summarise my findings as to the condition of Ms Higgins in the Suite; thirdly, identify publish-incident events not already dealt with that may rationally bear upon what occurred within the Suite; and fourthly, state my conclusions. A spokesman for the federal government Information Bureau declared that authorities declined her entry in accordance with the safety regulation that permits the authorities to refuse the entry of a one who poses a menace to stability or inside safety. Yes. The ADA and the Rehabilitation Act permit employers to make data obtainable upfront to all workers about who to contact-in the event that they want-to request accommodation for a incapacity that they may have upon return to the workplace, even if no date has been announced for his or her return.
Further, and critically, upon a evaluate of the whole of my findings on the proof, even taking all these other potentialities of what might have occurred collectively, the sum of the probability they occurred is outweighed by the likelihood Ms Higgins was raped as she asserted in the crucial a part of her oral testimony. 539 Thirdly, are the prompt communication of allegations with the AFP and the Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Team (SACAT) in 2019 and the following counselling, which will likely be examined in further element beneath, and which are in line with a sexual assault having taken place (even though it would be unsafe to rely on a scarcity of complaint and counselling as counterintuitive behaviour, for causes I have explained). Further, contemplating all of the submit-incident conduct to which I’ve referred as a whole, it is not inconsistent with the conduct of a genuine victim of sexual assault struggling to process what occurred, looking for to cope, and working by her choices. 524 For completeness, I ought to mention that in Section I.2 below, I check with a contemporaneous observe of Assistant Commissioner Close of a meeting on 4 April, which incorporates a reference to “info that alleged sufferer could have been drugged”.
498 If Ms Higgins had been the sufferer of the assault she recounted, this could simply replicate the lability and frailty of reminiscence following such an event and how somebody can come to process trauma and later recount a consolidated reminiscence of a highly distressing incident which has come to dominate her life in recent occasions. I have already defined why it was pointless for me to just accept opinion evidence explaining the danger of constructing assumptions as to the reliability of sexual assault complaints by purpose of some a priori view as to how victims of sexual assault are anticipated to behave. 497 It may need been mentioned to be a possible pointer to a lack of reliability of this aspect of her proof given at trial, but the purpose was not relied upon by those appearing for Mr Lehrmann, presumably because what commonsense and the agreed details go some manner in explaining is that a tension or inconsistency of this type must not be handled superficially and there may be a wholly benign rationalization for its existence. 551 As will be seen from the above, I’ve: (a) directed myself as to the principled strategy to fact-finding; (b) identified why, on the premise of my credibility assessments and other dependable contemporaneous proof: (i) I reject the entirety of Mr Lehrmann’s account as to what occurred in the Ministerial Suite; and (ii) have identified elements of the account of Ms Higgins which can be inaccurately based or exhibit an obvious inconsistency; (c) made findings as to: (i) the condition of Ms Higgins; and (ii) the preceding proximate interactions between Mr Lehrmann and Ms Higgins and their states of mind after they arrived at Parliament House; (d) recognized incontrovertible information and drawn some conclusions from the existence of these info; and (e) considered any alleged counterintuitive behaviour and relevant post-incident representations in proof.
It then says that because “Mr Lehrmann knew that Ms Higgins had had a minimum of six spirit-based drinks at the Dock and then several additional drinks at 88mph” that “his conduct in respect of consent to intercourse was at the very least reckless”. 572 Ms Wilkinson oddly submits with regard to the non-consent aspect that “Ms Higgins gave proof that she didn’t consent to sex with Mr Lehrmann” and this must be accepted as a result of “she was not challenged on that evidence”. Mr Lehrmann submits this demonstrates Ms Higgins: (a) walked in a straight line by the metal detectors carrying excessive heels twice; (b) bent over a number of times without falling over or stumbling, together with once bending from the hip and standing on one foot with none help; (c) skipped alongside the corridor to catch as much as Mr Lehrmann; (d) smiled and acknowledged somebody out of shot and acknowledged a security guard; and (e) didn’t fall over or should be carried through security. 521 During her entry, the CCTV footage demonstrates she was not paralytically drunk and was, presently, in a position to perform to a certain stage.