Lehrmann inquiry head's leak was 'transparent, not corrupt', lawyer said
Bruce Lehrmann
Australia
national
Australian Capital Territory CONTACT US
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Kiama byelection looms as convicted sex offender MP loses fight to keep job
Convicted sex offender MP Gareth Ward has lost a fight to keep his job, as the Court of Appeal rejected his lawyer's arguments that his expulsion from parliament would be "punitive". "Representative democracy would not be offended by the passage of any resolution expelling Mr Ward," Chief Justice Andrew Bell said on Thursday afternoon. "The electorate of Kiama will be re-enfranchised by the holding of a byelection." The move means a byelection for the seat of Kiama is looming, with a motion to expel Ward receiving bipartisan support following his convictions for serious sexual abuse offences. Ward, 44, was escorted into custody last week after a jury found him guilty of sexual intercourse without consent against a 24-year-old man in 2015, and three counts of indecent assault against an 18-year-old man in 2013. The former Liberal is in a Cessnock jail awaiting his sentencing, scheduled for September 19, while he continues to receive his full taxpayer-funded salary. Labor, with support from the Coalition, was expected to introduce a motion to expel Ward from parliament on Tuesday. However, Ward's lawyers filed an injunction at the 11th hour to block the motion, with an urgent full-day hearing in the Court of Appeal underway. It was initially scheduled for Friday; however, it was moved to Thursday, as parliament will break for five weeks after Friday. Judge Bell, Justice Anna Mitchelmore, and Justice Jeremy Kirk rejected Ward's lawyer's arguments and dismissed the interlocutory injunction. "The fact that Mr Ward has filed a notice of intention to appeal (his convictions) does not affect the power of the assembly to expel him," Judge Bell said. "Section 13A(3) of the Constitution Act expressly preserves the assembly's right to expel a member and any doubt is resolved by the second reading speech to introduce that section. "Whether or not the assembly was under an obligation to afford Mr Ward procedural fairness, he has been afforded an opportunity to present arguments as to why he should not be expelled and has exercised that right by his solicitor's letter." Ward has also been orderd pay the government's legal costs. Ward's barrister Peter King had argued the Legislative Assembly would become a "kangaroo court" if it were to expel Ward, as his "existing right as a member of the assembly to speak in the debate to oppose the resolution is lost". "In short, he is to be expelled by a kangaroo court," Mr King said. Judge Bell interjected to say Ward's inability to attend parliament and to oppose the motion was "driven entirely by the fact" he was behind bars. Mr King also argued the assembly had no power to expel him. "We submit it is punitive, firstly because it expels the plaintiff (Ward) from his seat to which he was elected by the people of Kiama," Mr King said. Mr King said the action was also punitive because it would trigger a by-election, and Ward would "further be punished in that respect by losing the opportunity of regaining his seat." Under Standing Order 254 of the NSW Parliament, an MP only faces expulsion if they are found by the House to be "guilty of conduct unworthy of a member of parliament". Mr King claimed the "mere fact" of the convictions was "not a sufficient basis" for an expulsion. He said the letter to Ward from the Leader of the House Ron Hoenig did not outline Ward's behaviour that satisfied the description of the definition of unworthy conduct. "All Mr Ward has is a four-paragraph letter, which fails to identify any behaviour," Mr King said. Judge Bell pressed the barrister, stating: "Are you seriously submitting that convictions of the counts ... are not conduct unworthy?" "The four counts are evidence of the fact of conviction, but they're not evidence of the facts which underlie that conviction," Mr King replied. Mr King told the court Ward has filed a notice of intention to appeal his criminal convictions and that parliament should wait until his appeal is heard before expelling him. He said that if Ward is later acquitted after he is expelled, then he will have lost his rights to regain his seat, meaning his career will have been "trashed". Justice Bell intervened and said a "very significant event" had since interposed since Ward was initially suspended from parliament after he was charged with the offences. "He has had a nine-week trial, and he has been convicted by 12 of his fellow citizens," the judge said. The government's barrister Craig Lenehan SC argued that the interlocutory injunction granted on Monday should be overturned to allow the expulsion motion. He said Ward had "assumed the burden of showing some sort of punitive purpose" in launching the case. "The letter, we say, is very errored territory ... it displays no punitive purpose whatsoever and cannot be said to involve some sort of sham," he said. "We would say ... it's obviously open to a legislative body to form a view that a member committed by a jury of serious sex offence should be expelled to in order to protect the mutual trust and confidence of its members, and also the confidence of the community in the ability of the assembly to discharge its high constitutional functions." NSW Premier Chris Minns said having an MP sitting in jail awaiting sentencing, while demanding to remain in parliament, was "an unconscionable situation". Opposition Leader Mark Speakman repeated calls for Ward to resign after the legal action prevented a parliamentary vote to expel him. Convicted sex offender MP Gareth Ward has lost a fight to keep his job, as the Court of Appeal rejected his lawyer's arguments that his expulsion from parliament would be "punitive". "Representative democracy would not be offended by the passage of any resolution expelling Mr Ward," Chief Justice Andrew Bell said on Thursday afternoon. "The electorate of Kiama will be re-enfranchised by the holding of a byelection." The move means a byelection for the seat of Kiama is looming, with a motion to expel Ward receiving bipartisan support following his convictions for serious sexual abuse offences. Ward, 44, was escorted into custody last week after a jury found him guilty of sexual intercourse without consent against a 24-year-old man in 2015, and three counts of indecent assault against an 18-year-old man in 2013. The former Liberal is in a Cessnock jail awaiting his sentencing, scheduled for September 19, while he continues to receive his full taxpayer-funded salary. Labor, with support from the Coalition, was expected to introduce a motion to expel Ward from parliament on Tuesday. However, Ward's lawyers filed an injunction at the 11th hour to block the motion, with an urgent full-day hearing in the Court of Appeal underway. It was initially scheduled for Friday; however, it was moved to Thursday, as parliament will break for five weeks after Friday. Judge Bell, Justice Anna Mitchelmore, and Justice Jeremy Kirk rejected Ward's lawyer's arguments and dismissed the interlocutory injunction. "The fact that Mr Ward has filed a notice of intention to appeal (his convictions) does not affect the power of the assembly to expel him," Judge Bell said. "Section 13A(3) of the Constitution Act expressly preserves the assembly's right to expel a member and any doubt is resolved by the second reading speech to introduce that section. "Whether or not the assembly was under an obligation to afford Mr Ward procedural fairness, he has been afforded an opportunity to present arguments as to why he should not be expelled and has exercised that right by his solicitor's letter." Ward has also been orderd pay the government's legal costs. Ward's barrister Peter King had argued the Legislative Assembly would become a "kangaroo court" if it were to expel Ward, as his "existing right as a member of the assembly to speak in the debate to oppose the resolution is lost". "In short, he is to be expelled by a kangaroo court," Mr King said. Judge Bell interjected to say Ward's inability to attend parliament and to oppose the motion was "driven entirely by the fact" he was behind bars. Mr King also argued the assembly had no power to expel him. "We submit it is punitive, firstly because it expels the plaintiff (Ward) from his seat to which he was elected by the people of Kiama," Mr King said. Mr King said the action was also punitive because it would trigger a by-election, and Ward would "further be punished in that respect by losing the opportunity of regaining his seat." Under Standing Order 254 of the NSW Parliament, an MP only faces expulsion if they are found by the House to be "guilty of conduct unworthy of a member of parliament". Mr King claimed the "mere fact" of the convictions was "not a sufficient basis" for an expulsion. He said the letter to Ward from the Leader of the House Ron Hoenig did not outline Ward's behaviour that satisfied the description of the definition of unworthy conduct. "All Mr Ward has is a four-paragraph letter, which fails to identify any behaviour," Mr King said. Judge Bell pressed the barrister, stating: "Are you seriously submitting that convictions of the counts ... are not conduct unworthy?" "The four counts are evidence of the fact of conviction, but they're not evidence of the facts which underlie that conviction," Mr King replied. Mr King told the court Ward has filed a notice of intention to appeal his criminal convictions and that parliament should wait until his appeal is heard before expelling him. He said that if Ward is later acquitted after he is expelled, then he will have lost his rights to regain his seat, meaning his career will have been "trashed". Justice Bell intervened and said a "very significant event" had since interposed since Ward was initially suspended from parliament after he was charged with the offences. "He has had a nine-week trial, and he has been convicted by 12 of his fellow citizens," the judge said. The government's barrister Craig Lenehan SC argued that the interlocutory injunction granted on Monday should be overturned to allow the expulsion motion. He said Ward had "assumed the burden of showing some sort of punitive purpose" in launching the case. "The letter, we say, is very errored territory ... it displays no punitive purpose whatsoever and cannot be said to involve some sort of sham," he said. "We would say ... it's obviously open to a legislative body to form a view that a member committed by a jury of serious sex offence should be expelled to in order to protect the mutual trust and confidence of its members, and also the confidence of the community in the ability of the assembly to discharge its high constitutional functions." NSW Premier Chris Minns said having an MP sitting in jail awaiting sentencing, while demanding to remain in parliament, was "an unconscionable situation". Opposition Leader Mark Speakman repeated calls for Ward to resign after the legal action prevented a parliamentary vote to expel him. Convicted sex offender MP Gareth Ward has lost a fight to keep his job, as the Court of Appeal rejected his lawyer's arguments that his expulsion from parliament would be "punitive". "Representative democracy would not be offended by the passage of any resolution expelling Mr Ward," Chief Justice Andrew Bell said on Thursday afternoon. "The electorate of Kiama will be re-enfranchised by the holding of a byelection." The move means a byelection for the seat of Kiama is looming, with a motion to expel Ward receiving bipartisan support following his convictions for serious sexual abuse offences. Ward, 44, was escorted into custody last week after a jury found him guilty of sexual intercourse without consent against a 24-year-old man in 2015, and three counts of indecent assault against an 18-year-old man in 2013. The former Liberal is in a Cessnock jail awaiting his sentencing, scheduled for September 19, while he continues to receive his full taxpayer-funded salary. Labor, with support from the Coalition, was expected to introduce a motion to expel Ward from parliament on Tuesday. However, Ward's lawyers filed an injunction at the 11th hour to block the motion, with an urgent full-day hearing in the Court of Appeal underway. It was initially scheduled for Friday; however, it was moved to Thursday, as parliament will break for five weeks after Friday. Judge Bell, Justice Anna Mitchelmore, and Justice Jeremy Kirk rejected Ward's lawyer's arguments and dismissed the interlocutory injunction. "The fact that Mr Ward has filed a notice of intention to appeal (his convictions) does not affect the power of the assembly to expel him," Judge Bell said. "Section 13A(3) of the Constitution Act expressly preserves the assembly's right to expel a member and any doubt is resolved by the second reading speech to introduce that section. "Whether or not the assembly was under an obligation to afford Mr Ward procedural fairness, he has been afforded an opportunity to present arguments as to why he should not be expelled and has exercised that right by his solicitor's letter." Ward has also been orderd pay the government's legal costs. Ward's barrister Peter King had argued the Legislative Assembly would become a "kangaroo court" if it were to expel Ward, as his "existing right as a member of the assembly to speak in the debate to oppose the resolution is lost". "In short, he is to be expelled by a kangaroo court," Mr King said. Judge Bell interjected to say Ward's inability to attend parliament and to oppose the motion was "driven entirely by the fact" he was behind bars. Mr King also argued the assembly had no power to expel him. "We submit it is punitive, firstly because it expels the plaintiff (Ward) from his seat to which he was elected by the people of Kiama," Mr King said. Mr King said the action was also punitive because it would trigger a by-election, and Ward would "further be punished in that respect by losing the opportunity of regaining his seat." Under Standing Order 254 of the NSW Parliament, an MP only faces expulsion if they are found by the House to be "guilty of conduct unworthy of a member of parliament". Mr King claimed the "mere fact" of the convictions was "not a sufficient basis" for an expulsion. He said the letter to Ward from the Leader of the House Ron Hoenig did not outline Ward's behaviour that satisfied the description of the definition of unworthy conduct. "All Mr Ward has is a four-paragraph letter, which fails to identify any behaviour," Mr King said. Judge Bell pressed the barrister, stating: "Are you seriously submitting that convictions of the counts ... are not conduct unworthy?" "The four counts are evidence of the fact of conviction, but they're not evidence of the facts which underlie that conviction," Mr King replied. Mr King told the court Ward has filed a notice of intention to appeal his criminal convictions and that parliament should wait until his appeal is heard before expelling him. He said that if Ward is later acquitted after he is expelled, then he will have lost his rights to regain his seat, meaning his career will have been "trashed". Justice Bell intervened and said a "very significant event" had since interposed since Ward was initially suspended from parliament after he was charged with the offences. "He has had a nine-week trial, and he has been convicted by 12 of his fellow citizens," the judge said. The government's barrister Craig Lenehan SC argued that the interlocutory injunction granted on Monday should be overturned to allow the expulsion motion. He said Ward had "assumed the burden of showing some sort of punitive purpose" in launching the case. "The letter, we say, is very errored territory ... it displays no punitive purpose whatsoever and cannot be said to involve some sort of sham," he said. "We would say ... it's obviously open to a legislative body to form a view that a member committed by a jury of serious sex offence should be expelled to in order to protect the mutual trust and confidence of its members, and also the confidence of the community in the ability of the assembly to discharge its high constitutional functions." NSW Premier Chris Minns said having an MP sitting in jail awaiting sentencing, while demanding to remain in parliament, was "an unconscionable situation". Opposition Leader Mark Speakman repeated calls for Ward to resign after the legal action prevented a parliamentary vote to expel him. Convicted sex offender MP Gareth Ward has lost a fight to keep his job, as the Court of Appeal rejected his lawyer's arguments that his expulsion from parliament would be "punitive". "Representative democracy would not be offended by the passage of any resolution expelling Mr Ward," Chief Justice Andrew Bell said on Thursday afternoon. "The electorate of Kiama will be re-enfranchised by the holding of a byelection." The move means a byelection for the seat of Kiama is looming, with a motion to expel Ward receiving bipartisan support following his convictions for serious sexual abuse offences. Ward, 44, was escorted into custody last week after a jury found him guilty of sexual intercourse without consent against a 24-year-old man in 2015, and three counts of indecent assault against an 18-year-old man in 2013. The former Liberal is in a Cessnock jail awaiting his sentencing, scheduled for September 19, while he continues to receive his full taxpayer-funded salary. Labor, with support from the Coalition, was expected to introduce a motion to expel Ward from parliament on Tuesday. However, Ward's lawyers filed an injunction at the 11th hour to block the motion, with an urgent full-day hearing in the Court of Appeal underway. It was initially scheduled for Friday; however, it was moved to Thursday, as parliament will break for five weeks after Friday. Judge Bell, Justice Anna Mitchelmore, and Justice Jeremy Kirk rejected Ward's lawyer's arguments and dismissed the interlocutory injunction. "The fact that Mr Ward has filed a notice of intention to appeal (his convictions) does not affect the power of the assembly to expel him," Judge Bell said. "Section 13A(3) of the Constitution Act expressly preserves the assembly's right to expel a member and any doubt is resolved by the second reading speech to introduce that section. "Whether or not the assembly was under an obligation to afford Mr Ward procedural fairness, he has been afforded an opportunity to present arguments as to why he should not be expelled and has exercised that right by his solicitor's letter." Ward has also been orderd pay the government's legal costs. Ward's barrister Peter King had argued the Legislative Assembly would become a "kangaroo court" if it were to expel Ward, as his "existing right as a member of the assembly to speak in the debate to oppose the resolution is lost". "In short, he is to be expelled by a kangaroo court," Mr King said. Judge Bell interjected to say Ward's inability to attend parliament and to oppose the motion was "driven entirely by the fact" he was behind bars. Mr King also argued the assembly had no power to expel him. "We submit it is punitive, firstly because it expels the plaintiff (Ward) from his seat to which he was elected by the people of Kiama," Mr King said. Mr King said the action was also punitive because it would trigger a by-election, and Ward would "further be punished in that respect by losing the opportunity of regaining his seat." Under Standing Order 254 of the NSW Parliament, an MP only faces expulsion if they are found by the House to be "guilty of conduct unworthy of a member of parliament". Mr King claimed the "mere fact" of the convictions was "not a sufficient basis" for an expulsion. He said the letter to Ward from the Leader of the House Ron Hoenig did not outline Ward's behaviour that satisfied the description of the definition of unworthy conduct. "All Mr Ward has is a four-paragraph letter, which fails to identify any behaviour," Mr King said. Judge Bell pressed the barrister, stating: "Are you seriously submitting that convictions of the counts ... are not conduct unworthy?" "The four counts are evidence of the fact of conviction, but they're not evidence of the facts which underlie that conviction," Mr King replied. Mr King told the court Ward has filed a notice of intention to appeal his criminal convictions and that parliament should wait until his appeal is heard before expelling him. He said that if Ward is later acquitted after he is expelled, then he will have lost his rights to regain his seat, meaning his career will have been "trashed". Justice Bell intervened and said a "very significant event" had since interposed since Ward was initially suspended from parliament after he was charged with the offences. "He has had a nine-week trial, and he has been convicted by 12 of his fellow citizens," the judge said. The government's barrister Craig Lenehan SC argued that the interlocutory injunction granted on Monday should be overturned to allow the expulsion motion. He said Ward had "assumed the burden of showing some sort of punitive purpose" in launching the case. "The letter, we say, is very errored territory ... it displays no punitive purpose whatsoever and cannot be said to involve some sort of sham," he said. "We would say ... it's obviously open to a legislative body to form a view that a member committed by a jury of serious sex offence should be expelled to in order to protect the mutual trust and confidence of its members, and also the confidence of the community in the ability of the assembly to discharge its high constitutional functions." NSW Premier Chris Minns said having an MP sitting in jail awaiting sentencing, while demanding to remain in parliament, was "an unconscionable situation". Opposition Leader Mark Speakman repeated calls for Ward to resign after the legal action prevented a parliamentary vote to expel him.
Perth Now
2 hours ago
- Perth Now
Non-binary battle as worker fired for calling colleague ‘he'
A 63-year-old Perth man has been sacked from his high-paying job after he called a non-binary colleague 'he' instead of 'they'. The case went to the Fair Work Commission after the fired worker claimed wrongful dismissal, but the matter was kept under wraps because the conciliation conference was confidential. The identities of the two people at the centre of the pronoun controversy and the name of their employer is not publicly available information, but details leaked out after lawyers started talking about the implications of the case. The West Australian understands the legal fight erupted after an exchange at a leadership training course in February, when the man said 'he' while introducing the younger co-worker to the room. Another staff member corrected him and the man apologised to the worker — a biological male who identified neither a man nor a woman. The non gender-specific employee had earlier told the man that they wanted to be referred to as 'they' and the pronoun was written on their name badge. Relations between the pair remained overtly cordial for the duration of the training day. They sat next to each other and were partners in various role-playing scenarios. The older worker was later informed by his manager that a formal complaint had been lodged, and a written apology was required. He refused, claiming nobody could be compelled to call a colleague 'they'. He later told a Fair Work hearing that if one person had the arbitrary right to use a particular pronoun then another person had the right not to. The decision to not apologise exacerbated an already harsh backlash from co-workers, many of whom were in their 20s and had sided with their non-binary colleague. The company launched an investigation in March and the older worker was shown the door. He claimed his dismissal was unlawful and sought legal advice, intending to take the matter to the Federal Court. The matter was shuffled to Fair Work, where he was told he risked a violent social backlash if he pursued the matter in open court. It was with that in mind he reached a confidential settlement with his former employer. The case is unusual because it is not tinged with religious overtones. The sacked worker's refusal to say sorry in writing was not motivated by faith, rather from a belief he was being bullied into accepting a position on gender politics. Lavan Legal partner Bruno Di Girolami, who specialises in workplace law, said the case was 'new legal territory'. 'This situation would broadly fall within equal opportunity legislation,' Mr Di Girolami said. 'Those laws say that you cannot be discriminated against based on gender or intersex status. So, if a company had a policy that employees would not be called 'they' or 'them' then that would likely be actionable by a transgender or non-binary employee on the grounds it is discriminatory, but each case would turn on the facts.' Lawyers who spoke to The West Australian about the case said there did not appear to be a legal right for someone to be called 'they' or 'them' and it was up to individual companies to articulate pronoun convention. It is understood that the company who employed the 63-year-old did not have a pronoun policy. Gender politics have dominated headlines over the past few days courtesy of transgender woman Roxanne Tickle going to court to prove that female-only spaces were illegal if they excluded trans women. Gay and trans rights advocates Equality Australia has thrown its weight behind Ms Tickle's fight with Giggle app founder Sall Grover. Ms Grover had rejected Ms Tickle from the female-only networking app on the grounds the applicant was born a man. The Lesbian Action Group has thrown in behind Ms Grover. Equality Australia's application to get involved in the case will be decided on August 4, when Ms Grover's appeal is heard.
West Australian
6 hours ago
- West Australian
Live cattle export ban class action claimants launch appeal against Federal Court's June ruling
Claimants in the long-running class action against the Federal Government's 2011 live cattle export ban have launched an appeal, challenging a recent Federal Court ruling that the ban had no long-term impact on export numbers. As reported by ABC's WA Country Hour on August 7, the appeal is focused on the Court's findings regarding the extent of damages suffered by the industry, and the level of compensation being offered by the government. The class action, led by NT-based Brett Cattle Company, is seeking $510 million in compensation plus costs and interest — but only $215 million was offered to claimants by the Federal Government under Anthony Albanese. Class action participant and former Hedland Export Depot owner Paul Brown told the Countryman in June the offered amount was 'gross', 'inadequate', 'paltry', and 'bordering on negligent'. The Federal Government, under former PM Julia Gillard, suspended Australia's live cattle trade to Indonesia for six months after footage was shown on ABC of cattle being mistreated and slaughtered without being stunned. The move left 88,000 cattle bound for international shores stranded, and ground the live cattle export industry to a halt. Australia's pastoral industry has been at war with the Federal Government in the years since, with a class action of 300 cattle producers launched in 2014 in an attempt to claim $510 million in compensation. But Mr Brown said the ban had a devastating effect on Australian pastoralists beyond financial circumstances — he said the amount failed to include any provision for compensation, loss of business, anguish, or stress. The Federal Court sided with the class action in 2020, saying the ban was unlawful, but lead complainant — NT-based Brett Cattle Company — is the only plaintiff to have received any compensation after the Federal Court's finding in 2020. In June, Federal Court Justice Tom Thawley that live cattle exports in 2012 and 2013 were not affected by ban in 2011 — a claim pastoralists have vehemently denied. Figures from Meat and Livestock Australia show Australia exported 521,000 head of live cattle to Indonesia in 2010, 413,000 in 2011, 278,000 in 2012, and 452,000 in 2013.
