Big court win for Lehrmann inquiry chair
Former Queensland judge Walter Sofronoff KC led the 2023 board of inquiry into Mr Lehrmann's prosecution.
An investigation into Mr Sofronoff's conduct during that inquiry, in particular his decision to send a copy of the board's report to two journalists from the ABC and The Australian prior to its official release by the ACT government, was launched by the ACT Integrity Commission.
The commission in March found Mr Sofronoff had engaged in 'serious corrupt conduct'; however, he is seeking to have the commission's Operation Juno report overturned in the Federal Court. Walter Sofronoff KC led the 2023 board of inquiry into Bruce Lehrmann's prosecution. NewsWire/Tertius Pickard Credit: News Corp Australia
Lawyers for the Speaker of the ACT Legislative Assembly in May submitted the proceedings should be dismissed over claims the report was covered by parliamentary privilege, meaning it couldn't be tendered in court.
Therefore, the retired judge couldn't seek judicial review.
Justice Wendy Abraham said she allowed the Speaker to make the submission but ultimately dismissed it on Wednesday morning during a brief case management hearing in the Federal Court.
'I am not satisfied that the conduct of the proceedings on the material on which the applicant seeks to rely involves an infringement of Section 16 of the Parliamentary Privilege Act,' Justice Abraham told the court.
'I'll provide reasons for that in my final judgment.'
The matter is scheduled for a final hearing on July 21 and 22. Mr Sofronoff is attempting to overturn a report by the ACT Integrity Commission that found he engaged in serious corrupt conduct during the 2023 inquiry. Supplied. Credit: Supplied
Documents filed by his legal team claim that Mr Sofronoff was given the ability to do 'whatever (he) considers necessary or convenient for the fair and prompt conduct of the inquiry' as head of the inquiry, and he considered it necessary or convenient to engage with journalists 'for the fair and prompt conduct of the inquiry'.
The documents also claim Mr Sofronoff's actions were 'incapable of amounting to corrupt conduct' and the findings were 'seriously illogical, irrational and/or unreasonable'.
The Federal Court has found that Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. A criminal trial was aborted due to juror misconduct and a charge against him was dropped.
Mr Lehrmann has always denied the allegation and is appealing the Federal Court's finding.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
8 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Female 'safe space' app defends booting trans woman
A social media app has defended the ejection of a transgender woman, claiming the platform was needed as a safe space against "deplorable" behaviour from men. The Giggle for Girls app and founder Sall Grover are seeking to overturn a 2024 finding it discriminated against a transgender user by removing her from the women-only platform in September 2021. The platform was a "special measure" exempt from discrimination law because it sought to achieve substantial equality between men and women, an appeal court was told on Monday. The ability to create these kinds of special measures to promote equality would be frustrated if Justice Robert Bromwich's findings remained because they would - by definition - discriminate against some group of people, Noel Hutley SC said. "A special measure will exclude someone necessarily because it's otherwise not special," he told the Full Court of the Federal Court on Monday. The barrister said Ms Grover's intention behind the app was to provide a "safe space" for women. Evidence was shown to the court from women of sexual abuse, alcoholism, trolling and harassment from men who had found refuge on the Giggle platform. "It's got to the point to say that a by-blow of it is that certain people couldn't get onto it and were hurt by it - that's unfortunate," Mr Hutley said. The evidence showed "the most deplorable behaviour of men on the internet," he told a panel of three judges. The need for this type of space was "manifest" and it was a special measure despite excluding certain groups. Lawyers from the Sex Discrimination Commissioner have challenged this in court, saying "invidious discrimination" could be - on Giggle's view of the world - permitted to take place under the guise of a special measure. When Mr Hutley said this was an "extreme example" and did not need to be considered, one judge pushed back - asking why someone seeking to actively harm another group would be protected. "Why would the (Sex Discrimination Act) then say that's OK?" Justice Melissa Perry asked. Mr Hutley replied by saying parliament had to form a compromise when enacting the legislation. "So you say as long as you have a purpose of achieving substantive equality between one of the protected groups, you're in, irrespective of the nature of any other purpose?" the judge asked. "Quite," Mr Hutley replied. "If your purpose was to advance women, (if another) purpose was to disadvantage men then there's nothing wrong with that." Justice Perry asked what Ms Grover meant when she said she wanted Giggle to be a women-only safe space. "Women who she had judged to look like women," Mr Hutley replied. "No, but you're going in circles," the judge noted. Ms Grover denies findings she rejected Roxanne Tickle - who was born male but identifies as female - from the app in September 2021 because she did not look like a cisgender woman. Rather, she simply weeded out people who did not "appear female," Mr Hutley said. "Isn't that a distinction without a difference?" Justice Perry asked. Ms Tickle has also filed her own challenge to Justice Bromwich's decision, seeking to increase the $10,000 in damages he awarded her in August 2024. She further claims the judge wrongly found she was not directly discriminated against by Giggle and Ms Grover. The judge found that a condition by the platform that its members had the appearance of cisgender women did not specifically target Ms Tickle but indirectly discriminated against her. Her barrister Georgina Costello KC gave short submissions that her client was in fact a woman and that the definition of "sex" was not confined to a biological concept. The hearing continues on Tuesday. Lifeline 13 11 14 Fullstop Australia 1800 385 578 A social media app has defended the ejection of a transgender woman, claiming the platform was needed as a safe space against "deplorable" behaviour from men. The Giggle for Girls app and founder Sall Grover are seeking to overturn a 2024 finding it discriminated against a transgender user by removing her from the women-only platform in September 2021. The platform was a "special measure" exempt from discrimination law because it sought to achieve substantial equality between men and women, an appeal court was told on Monday. The ability to create these kinds of special measures to promote equality would be frustrated if Justice Robert Bromwich's findings remained because they would - by definition - discriminate against some group of people, Noel Hutley SC said. "A special measure will exclude someone necessarily because it's otherwise not special," he told the Full Court of the Federal Court on Monday. The barrister said Ms Grover's intention behind the app was to provide a "safe space" for women. Evidence was shown to the court from women of sexual abuse, alcoholism, trolling and harassment from men who had found refuge on the Giggle platform. "It's got to the point to say that a by-blow of it is that certain people couldn't get onto it and were hurt by it - that's unfortunate," Mr Hutley said. The evidence showed "the most deplorable behaviour of men on the internet," he told a panel of three judges. The need for this type of space was "manifest" and it was a special measure despite excluding certain groups. Lawyers from the Sex Discrimination Commissioner have challenged this in court, saying "invidious discrimination" could be - on Giggle's view of the world - permitted to take place under the guise of a special measure. When Mr Hutley said this was an "extreme example" and did not need to be considered, one judge pushed back - asking why someone seeking to actively harm another group would be protected. "Why would the (Sex Discrimination Act) then say that's OK?" Justice Melissa Perry asked. Mr Hutley replied by saying parliament had to form a compromise when enacting the legislation. "So you say as long as you have a purpose of achieving substantive equality between one of the protected groups, you're in, irrespective of the nature of any other purpose?" the judge asked. "Quite," Mr Hutley replied. "If your purpose was to advance women, (if another) purpose was to disadvantage men then there's nothing wrong with that." Justice Perry asked what Ms Grover meant when she said she wanted Giggle to be a women-only safe space. "Women who she had judged to look like women," Mr Hutley replied. "No, but you're going in circles," the judge noted. Ms Grover denies findings she rejected Roxanne Tickle - who was born male but identifies as female - from the app in September 2021 because she did not look like a cisgender woman. Rather, she simply weeded out people who did not "appear female," Mr Hutley said. "Isn't that a distinction without a difference?" Justice Perry asked. Ms Tickle has also filed her own challenge to Justice Bromwich's decision, seeking to increase the $10,000 in damages he awarded her in August 2024. She further claims the judge wrongly found she was not directly discriminated against by Giggle and Ms Grover. The judge found that a condition by the platform that its members had the appearance of cisgender women did not specifically target Ms Tickle but indirectly discriminated against her. Her barrister Georgina Costello KC gave short submissions that her client was in fact a woman and that the definition of "sex" was not confined to a biological concept. The hearing continues on Tuesday. Lifeline 13 11 14 Fullstop Australia 1800 385 578 A social media app has defended the ejection of a transgender woman, claiming the platform was needed as a safe space against "deplorable" behaviour from men. The Giggle for Girls app and founder Sall Grover are seeking to overturn a 2024 finding it discriminated against a transgender user by removing her from the women-only platform in September 2021. The platform was a "special measure" exempt from discrimination law because it sought to achieve substantial equality between men and women, an appeal court was told on Monday. The ability to create these kinds of special measures to promote equality would be frustrated if Justice Robert Bromwich's findings remained because they would - by definition - discriminate against some group of people, Noel Hutley SC said. "A special measure will exclude someone necessarily because it's otherwise not special," he told the Full Court of the Federal Court on Monday. The barrister said Ms Grover's intention behind the app was to provide a "safe space" for women. Evidence was shown to the court from women of sexual abuse, alcoholism, trolling and harassment from men who had found refuge on the Giggle platform. "It's got to the point to say that a by-blow of it is that certain people couldn't get onto it and were hurt by it - that's unfortunate," Mr Hutley said. The evidence showed "the most deplorable behaviour of men on the internet," he told a panel of three judges. The need for this type of space was "manifest" and it was a special measure despite excluding certain groups. Lawyers from the Sex Discrimination Commissioner have challenged this in court, saying "invidious discrimination" could be - on Giggle's view of the world - permitted to take place under the guise of a special measure. When Mr Hutley said this was an "extreme example" and did not need to be considered, one judge pushed back - asking why someone seeking to actively harm another group would be protected. "Why would the (Sex Discrimination Act) then say that's OK?" Justice Melissa Perry asked. Mr Hutley replied by saying parliament had to form a compromise when enacting the legislation. "So you say as long as you have a purpose of achieving substantive equality between one of the protected groups, you're in, irrespective of the nature of any other purpose?" the judge asked. "Quite," Mr Hutley replied. "If your purpose was to advance women, (if another) purpose was to disadvantage men then there's nothing wrong with that." Justice Perry asked what Ms Grover meant when she said she wanted Giggle to be a women-only safe space. "Women who she had judged to look like women," Mr Hutley replied. "No, but you're going in circles," the judge noted. Ms Grover denies findings she rejected Roxanne Tickle - who was born male but identifies as female - from the app in September 2021 because she did not look like a cisgender woman. Rather, she simply weeded out people who did not "appear female," Mr Hutley said. "Isn't that a distinction without a difference?" Justice Perry asked. Ms Tickle has also filed her own challenge to Justice Bromwich's decision, seeking to increase the $10,000 in damages he awarded her in August 2024. She further claims the judge wrongly found she was not directly discriminated against by Giggle and Ms Grover. The judge found that a condition by the platform that its members had the appearance of cisgender women did not specifically target Ms Tickle but indirectly discriminated against her. Her barrister Georgina Costello KC gave short submissions that her client was in fact a woman and that the definition of "sex" was not confined to a biological concept. The hearing continues on Tuesday. Lifeline 13 11 14 Fullstop Australia 1800 385 578 A social media app has defended the ejection of a transgender woman, claiming the platform was needed as a safe space against "deplorable" behaviour from men. The Giggle for Girls app and founder Sall Grover are seeking to overturn a 2024 finding it discriminated against a transgender user by removing her from the women-only platform in September 2021. The platform was a "special measure" exempt from discrimination law because it sought to achieve substantial equality between men and women, an appeal court was told on Monday. The ability to create these kinds of special measures to promote equality would be frustrated if Justice Robert Bromwich's findings remained because they would - by definition - discriminate against some group of people, Noel Hutley SC said. "A special measure will exclude someone necessarily because it's otherwise not special," he told the Full Court of the Federal Court on Monday. The barrister said Ms Grover's intention behind the app was to provide a "safe space" for women. Evidence was shown to the court from women of sexual abuse, alcoholism, trolling and harassment from men who had found refuge on the Giggle platform. "It's got to the point to say that a by-blow of it is that certain people couldn't get onto it and were hurt by it - that's unfortunate," Mr Hutley said. The evidence showed "the most deplorable behaviour of men on the internet," he told a panel of three judges. The need for this type of space was "manifest" and it was a special measure despite excluding certain groups. Lawyers from the Sex Discrimination Commissioner have challenged this in court, saying "invidious discrimination" could be - on Giggle's view of the world - permitted to take place under the guise of a special measure. When Mr Hutley said this was an "extreme example" and did not need to be considered, one judge pushed back - asking why someone seeking to actively harm another group would be protected. "Why would the (Sex Discrimination Act) then say that's OK?" Justice Melissa Perry asked. Mr Hutley replied by saying parliament had to form a compromise when enacting the legislation. "So you say as long as you have a purpose of achieving substantive equality between one of the protected groups, you're in, irrespective of the nature of any other purpose?" the judge asked. "Quite," Mr Hutley replied. "If your purpose was to advance women, (if another) purpose was to disadvantage men then there's nothing wrong with that." Justice Perry asked what Ms Grover meant when she said she wanted Giggle to be a women-only safe space. "Women who she had judged to look like women," Mr Hutley replied. "No, but you're going in circles," the judge noted. Ms Grover denies findings she rejected Roxanne Tickle - who was born male but identifies as female - from the app in September 2021 because she did not look like a cisgender woman. Rather, she simply weeded out people who did not "appear female," Mr Hutley said. "Isn't that a distinction without a difference?" Justice Perry asked. Ms Tickle has also filed her own challenge to Justice Bromwich's decision, seeking to increase the $10,000 in damages he awarded her in August 2024. She further claims the judge wrongly found she was not directly discriminated against by Giggle and Ms Grover. The judge found that a condition by the platform that its members had the appearance of cisgender women did not specifically target Ms Tickle but indirectly discriminated against her. Her barrister Georgina Costello KC gave short submissions that her client was in fact a woman and that the definition of "sex" was not confined to a biological concept. The hearing continues on Tuesday. Lifeline 13 11 14 Fullstop Australia 1800 385 578
Perth Now
9 hours ago
- Perth Now
Women's app makes case to 'disadvantage' for equality
A social media app has defended ejecting a transgender woman, claiming that certain groups could be lawfully disadvantaged by efforts to advance women's rights. The Giggle for Girls app is seeking to overturn a 2024 finding that it discriminated against a transgender user by removing her from the women-only platform in September 2021. The platform was a "special measure" exempt from discrimination law as it sought to achieve substantial equality between men and women, an appeal court was told on Monday. The ability to create these kinds of special measures to promote equality would be frustrated if Justice Robert Bromwich's findings remained because they would - by definition - discriminate against some group of people, Noel Hutley SC said. "A special measure will exclude someone necessarily because it's otherwise not special," he told the Full Court of the Federal Court on Monday. Lawyers from the Sex Discrimination Commissioner have challenged this, telling the court that this would permit "invidious discrimination" to take place under the shield of a special measure. When Mr Hutley said this was an "extreme example" and did not need to be considered, one judge pushed back - asking why someone seeking to actively harm another group would be protected. "Why would the (Sex Discrimination Act) then say that's OK?" Justice Melissa Perry asked. Mr Hutley replied by saying parliament had to form a compromise when enacting the legislation. "So you say as long as you have a purpose of achieving substantive equality between one of the protected groups, you're in, irrespective of the nature of any other purpose?" the judge asked. "Quite," Mr Hutley replied. "If your purpose was to advance women, (if another) purpose was to disadvantage men then there's nothing wrong with that." Roxanne Tickle - who was born male but identifies as female - was removed from the app in September 2021. Ms Tickle has also filed her own challenge to Justice Bromwich's decision, seeking to increase the $10,000 in damages he awarded her in August 2024. She further claims the judge wrongly found that she was not directly discriminated against by Giggle and its founder Sall Grover. The judge found that a condition by the platform that its members had the appearance of cisgender women did not specifically target Ms Tickle but indirectly discriminated against her. The hearing continues. Lifeline 13 11 14 Fullstop Australia 1800 385 578
News.com.au
4 days ago
- News.com.au
Elon Musk's X Corp loses Aussie legal fight against eSafety Commissioner
Elon Musk's X Corp, previously known as Twitter, has lost a second legal bid to overturn a penalty imposed by Australia's online watchdog two years ago. The US-based social media giant was handed a transparency notice by eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant seeking information about the measures the company was taking to address the proliferation of child sexual exploitation material on its platform. The reporting notice required Twitter Inc to prepare a report on its compliance with basic online safety expectations between January 2022 and January 2023, with a response required by March 29, 2023. X Corp did respond, however the commission argued the reply was inadequate and incomplete, later imposing a $610,500 penalty in September that year. The company challenged the penalty in the Federal Court of Australia arguing the compliance notice was issued to Twitter a month before that company ceased to exist, when Musk acquired the platform for $44 billion, and therefore was not obliged to respond. The argument was struck down in October last year by Justice Michael Wheelahan who found the company failed to show that it was not required to respond. However the case returned before a full bench of the Federal Court in March as the company appealed against Justice Wheelahan's judgment. X Corp's barrister Bret Walker SC argued the Judge made a mistake in ruling the obligation to respond adequately to the notice continued after the merger of Twitter Inc and X Corp. He argued Justice Wheelahan had erred by not finding that at the time of the merger Twitter Inc 'ceased to exist' and the eSafety Commissioner would have been required to issue a new notice. The case returned to court on Thursday as Justice Bernard Murphy delivered a judgment against the social media company. Justice Murphy dismissed the appeal and ordered X Corp to pay the eSafety Commissioner's costs. The full judgment is expected to be published online. After Justice Wheelahan's initial ruling last year, Commissioner Julie Inman Grant welcomed the Court's decision. 'Early last year, we asked some of the world's biggest technology companies, including Twitter, to report on steps they were taking to comply with the Australian Government's Basic Online Safety Expectations in relation to child sexual exploitation and abuse material on their platforms,' she said. 'Had X Corp's argument been accepted by the Court it could have set the concerning precedent that a foreign company's merger with another foreign company might enable it to avoid regulatory obligations in Australia.'
