265 The submission can be made that whether Ms Higgins instructed Ms Brown that she remembered Mr Lehrmann being “on top of me” (T2096.30-31) at their first (as Ms Higgins asserts) or second assembly (as Ms Brown asserts) is “immaterial”, as a result of Ms Brown’s account favours Network Ten as “Mr Lehrmann’s case idea that Ms Higgins said she had been sexually assaulted at the first meeting to save lots of her job, falls apart”. Or, even stranger nonetheless, why, as detailed under, would she toy with a conspiracy idea that her knowledge was wiped remotely? I will come to other examples below, including a substantively more essential one relating to Mr Payne recounted to Ms Maiden. Those that violated the little one restrict policy by having an unapproved youngster or helping another do so faced disciplinary measures such as social compensation fees, job loss or demotion, loss of promotion alternative, expulsion from the occasion (membership is an unofficial requirement for certain jobs), and other administrative punishments, including in some cases the destruction of personal property. The lead acknowledged that on March 11, 2021, Dropbox filed a CyberTip with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) concerning little one pornography present in a Dropbox account on March 10, 2021. The CyberTip reported that a Dropbox account consumer had uploaded 5 movies to Dropbox that have been later confirmed by regulation enforcement to include child pornography.
I haven’t, in fact, seen any outline of anticipated evidence served, but assume Network Ten wished to lead evidence relevant to the termination of Mr Lehrmann and in regards to the falsity of what he mentioned about his causes for going to Parliament House and what he did while he was there. 246 What is equally odd are the singular circumstances by which Ms Higgins’ telephone was “completely wiped” and her images had disappeared from her iCloud records (Ex 36 (at 0:05:56; 0:07:53-0:08:00)), and but the bruise photograph and another limited material survived, permitting it to be deployed by Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz to lend verisimilitude to the account she gave to Network Ten. 258 When closely analysed, Ms Higgins’ out-of-courtroom representations in 2019 are of a unique character than those out-of-courtroom representations from 2021 and in courtroom thereafter. Any inconsistent or untrue representations in 2019 are not inconsistent with the conduct of a real sufferer of sexual assault struggling to course of what happened, seeking to cope, and dealing via her choices.
264 The respondents contend it is necessary to not overstate the significance of Ms Brown’s proof as a result of her management of the allegations in March 2019 is “merely not in concern, save to the extent that it has a bearing on the assessment of Ms Higgins’ credit in relation to the allegation of rape”. Despite Ms Brown facing sustained strain from her Minister and one of the Minister’s colleagues to report the incident to the AFP – even though she was not sure an allegation was then being made from rape and irrespective of the needs of Ms Higgins – she pushed again. 263 An application was then made by Ms Brown to be relieved from compliance with the subpoenas. 557 I am further glad she felt unable to rise up from the sofa instantly following Mr Lehrmann leaving and she then passed out into a deep sleep. 231 Following review of the proof and the receipt of submissions, it turned evident to me the possible significance of the representations made within the Commonwealth Deed by Ms Higgins, and Annexure E particulars the steps I’ve taken to guard in opposition to any residual difficulty as to procedural fairness together with, within the circumstances set out above, permitting for Ms Higgins to make any submission she wished to make in regards to the submissions advanced by Mr Lehrmann.
First, no utility had been made for an advance ruling in accordance with s 192A EA and, in the circumstances, I was not disposed to present discover until a document of the kind indicated was tendered; secondly, as I had already explained, I needed all relevant matters to be handled in open court docket; thirdly, a subpoena ad testificandum is an order, in phrases, requiring a third celebration to appear earlier than the Court at a specified time and place, and the order remains in pressure till put aside by the Court; and fourthly, if an application to set aside the subpoena was to be made, it ought to be made on correct proof, in an orthodox way and decided in Court. Despite initially urgent the appliance to put aside the subpoena issued on the appliance of Mr Lehrmann, after I indicated I might make some lodging to satisfy the issues identified in medical evidence put before the Court on behalf of Ms Brown, the appliance was not pressed. MS CHRYSANTHOU: Your Honour, so long because it would not prejudice our means to oppose any application beneath part 46, it’s tendered with out objection, because we do oppose any application beneath part 46 to recall the witness, and we don’t want it to be said that not objecting to the doc in any way prejudices our capability to oppose that utility, if it’s persisted in.