Matt Wright's friend accused of 'ridiculous', 'nonsensical' evidence during TV star's trial
Mr Wright has pleaded not guilty in the Northern Territory Supreme Court to three counts of attempting to pervert the course of justice following the crash that killed his television co-star Chris "Willow" Wilson.
Catch up on today's live coverage of Matt Wright's Supreme Court trial.
Prosecutors do not allege Mr Wright was responsible for the crash but that he feared the ensuing investigation would expose systemic under-reporting of flying hours for his company's helicopters.
On Thursday, Crown prosecutor Jason Gullaci SC played a covert recording of a conversation between Mr Wright and Jai Tomlinson from seven months after the crash, while Mr Tomlinson was in the witness box.
Mr Tomlinson said he had no memory of the conversation or being worried about his friend "being implicated" and denied he had asked him to destroy documents.
"If that had happened, would you expect that you'd remember it?" Mr Gullaci asked.
"Maybe," Mr Tomlinson replied.
"How many times in your life, prior to September 2022, has someone asked you to destroy a document in connection with an investigation?" Mr Gullaci asked.
"I don't know."
"What, it's happened a few times?"
"As I said, I don't remember back."
"Is that something that has ever happened in your life?"
"Probably not."
Mr Tomlinson denied he was protecting Mr Wright out of a "sense of loyalty", saying he would not remember if someone asked him to destroy a helicopter's maintenance release (MR) form.
"If Mr Wright, in September 2022, said to you, 'Jai, old mate, I want you to find and destroy the original MR for [the crashed helicopter] because I'm worried the authorities are going to get their hands on it', if that happened, you would have to remember it, wouldn't you Mr Tomlinson?" Mr Gullaci asked.
"I wouldn't remember the conversation," Mr Tomlinson replied.
"That's your serious evidence?" Mr Gullaci asked.
"100 per cent."
"Have you ever been asked to commit a criminal offence before by destroying documents that might be related to an investigation?"
"I don't remember."
"And it would stand out starkly if it had happened, wouldn't it?"
"Not in my mind, no."
Mr Gullaci played Mr Tomlinson part of the recording in which Mr Wright allegedly says "everyone's starting to put the pressure on, start squealing" and Mr Tomlinson allegedly replies "one word against another's".
But Mr Tomlinson said he did not know what the word "squeal" might mean in that context, saying "I have two daughters and if they were to squeal, there's something going on".
"Yeah, thanks for that," Mr Gullaci replied.
"Everyone starting to put the pressure on, start squealing — what does squeal mean in that context Mr Tomlinson?" Mr Gullaci asked.
"I don't know, I don't remember the conversation."
"Is that a serious answer?"
"It is a serious answer."
"Do you know any other definition of the word squeal?"
"No, I haven't looked it up."
Mr Gullaci suggested Mr Tomlinson had changed his evidence from a pre-trial hearing when he had been unable to offer a definition for the word, and realising "how ridiculous your answers were", tried to "come up with an explanation".
"Are you seriously suggesting, as a man of 45 years of age, that you've never heard the concept of someone squealing, that is giving someone up?" he asked.
"Not to my knowledge," Mr Tomlinson replied.
"I suggest to you that that's just a flat-out lie, that you have heard and you do know that meaning," Mr Gullaci said.
"And the reason why you are taking this nonsensical position is because you know that if you know what the word 'squeal' means, there can only be one thing you were talking about on this recording."
"No," Mr Tomlinson replied.
The trial continues in Darwin on Friday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
6 minutes ago
- ABC News
National CCTV trial in childcare centres expected as ministers meet
A national trial of CCTV cameras in hundreds of childcare centres is expected to get the green light at a meeting with federal, state and territory education ministers in Sydney today. Under the proposal being discussed, up to 300 services would be asked to take part in the trial. A number of states recently launched reviews into safety at childcare centres following multiple allegations of child abuse by a worker in Victoria, and a number of other significant incidents in other states. The New South Wales report recommended the installation of cameras in all new childcare centres, while Victoria's review recommended a trial to evaluate the use of cameras as a "regulative and investigative tool". NSW has committed to its own trial, while Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan said she would prefer a national trial. She acknowledged privacy concerns but said CCTV must be considered as one way to better protect children. "I will acknowledge there are different views on this point … which is why moving to a trial in the first instance is most appropriate," Ms Allan said yesterday. While some states are already on board, others are yet to be convinced. Some have raised questions about where the footage would be stored and who would have access to it. Centres can already install CCTV cameras and recently Australia's biggest private childcare operator G8 Education announced it would roll out cameras to all of its centres. Early Childhood Australia CEO Samantha Page said she would support a trial but didn't want CCTV to create complacency or support poor practice. "Because there's a CCTV camera in a room, that does not mean it's okay to leave an educator alone with a child or group of children," she said. National Children's Commissioner Anne Hollonds said CCTV may have a role to play but raised concerns about an over-reliance on technology. "These other elements [to protect children] include the recruitment of the right people … the mandatory safety childcare training. The human elements are far more important than CCTV," she said. The trial is just one of a number of measures to be discussed at today's meeting, along with mandatory child safety training for all childcare staff and tougher penalties to try and deter breaches and non-compliance. The federal government will provide $189 million over the next four years to strengthen safety in the childcare sector. It includes funding to establish a new national register for childcare workers. Federal Education Minister Jason Clare flagged the idea last year, and during multiple media interviews after Joshua Dale Brown was arrested in Victoria. "There's a register for teachers; there's not a register for educators in centres. That's one of the other potential tools here to help keep children safe," he said last month. Details about how it would operate, what information would be included and when it could commence will be discussed at today's meeting. Early Childhood Education Minister Jess Walsh has previously suggested it would track workers from centre to centre and across state borders. "That register needs to be integrated with working with children checks … and it needs to be integrated with other information that we have about substantiated complaints and conduct against individuals," she said last month. Queensland Education Minister John-Paul Langbroek said a national register was long overdue. "A national register is critical to ensure the safety of children, support all early childhood services to ensure they do the right checks, and have the right information, every time they engage an educator, no matter where they are in the country," he said. NSW acting Minister for Education and Early Learning Courtney Houssos insisted the register must be a priority at today's meeting. "[It] will be most effective if it is implemented nationally," she said. The move comes after attorneys-general agreed to strengthen working with children checks so that if a worker is banned in one state, they are banned in all. Education Minister Jason Clare is set to talk to his state and territory counterparts about the mandatory mobile phone ban, which he said is set to be in place from September. The Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority has encouraged providers to adopt all practices in the National Model Code, which states staff should not have their phones on them while providing care to children, unless for emergencies or essential family needs. It's not clear at this stage how the ban will be enforced across different jurisdictions. Only two states have outlined their plans to issue hefty fines. South Australia has warned centres could be fined up to $50,000 or face suspension if they do not comply, with the SA education minister to explain the state's policy to his counterparts today. Victorian centres face a fine of up to $57,400 for long day care, kindergarten and outside school hours care services. Western Australia said it will introduce a ban but has not given a date, while NSW Premier Chris Minns indicated the finer details in his state had not been finalised. "We are looking at it. I accept the premise that there has to be zero tolerance when it comes to the safety and care of young people," he said. The federal government recently passed legislation that gives the Education Department the power to cut funding if a centre fails to meet national safety standards. The checks are carried out by state regulators, but a Four Corners investigation found many centres have not been checked for a number of years. Some states will push for more federal funding to help cover the cost of the checks. South Australian Minister for Education, Training and Skills Blair Boyer said his state was investing more in child safety. "This will deliver increased compliance checks and ensure ratings of ECEC services are updated every three years," he said. Western Australia's Early Childhood Minister Sabine Winton said the state government would spend an additional $1 million to boost the regulator's capacity but the federal government should also pitch in. "I will also be placing strong focus on advocating for building the capacity of the Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA) and state-based regulators," she said. Samantha Page agreed the federal government should play a greater financial role in ensuring state and territory regulators are fully resourced. "They [the regulators] need to able to undertake rating and assessment more frequently," she said. "I think the Commonwealth government tends to rely on the state and territory governments to find those resources and to operate those regulatory authorities without understanding the growth." 1,600 additional unannounced spot checks will be carried out by Commonwealth officers, but their main focus is on potential fraud.
News.com.au
7 hours ago
- News.com.au
Childcare worker phone ban, national register to dominate Friday's education ministers meeting
State and federal education ministers will discuss progress on a nationwide mobile phone ban for early childcare workers, among a range of other measures aimed at bolstering safety at centres. States, including South Australia, Victoria and most recently Western Australia, have already gone further with a total ban on personal mobile phones in centres, however all states and territories agreed to the voluntary Model Code set by the Commonwealth. The federal code restricts educators and workers from taking photo and videos on their personal devices. However, centre-issued devices are exempt from the rule. Other measures set to dominate the meeting, which will be held in Sydney on Friday, include funding a National Educator Register to ensure workers who fail to meet standards can't bypass state jurisdictions, tougher penalties to deter noncompliance and mandatory child safety training for all staff. Federal Education Minister Jason Clare will also propose a funding package of up to $189m over four years to implement the changes. The special meeting of education ministers follows a string of child abuse and sexual assault allegations, including Melbourne former childcare worker Joshua Brown who faces more than 70 charges. Australian Federal Police officers allege NSW worker David William James produced child abuse material of 10 victims, the oldest being six years old. As a result, the Commonwealth passed laws which would cut off funding to centres which repeatedly breached standards, plus allow compliance officers to conduct checks without prior warning. Mr Clare said Friday's meeting would discuss the 'next step' in ensuring safety standards in centres. 'No parent should ever have to wonder if their child is safe when they drop them off at child care,' he said. 'We need a national register to ensure we know who is caring for our children and their work history.' He also flagged mandatory child safety training as another priority. 'The overwhelming majority of childcare workers are awesome at what they do caring for and educating our children. They are just as angry as everyone else,' he said. 'They're our best asset here and we need to back them with the skills to spot when something isn't right. 'We also need to ban personal phones and ramp up inspections to make sure centres are up to scratch.' Early Childhood Education Minister Jess Walsh conceded 'there was more to do'. 'Our action supports the overwhelming majority of educators and providers who do the right thing and shuts the door on people and providers who do harm,' she said. 'Our investment of up to $184m is the biggest child safety package the early learning sector has ever seen.' The Coalition's education and early learning spokesman Jonno Duniam said Friday's meeting must produce 'immediate, consistent reforms'. He said there needed to be a consistent phone ban across all states, and backed South Australia's $50,000 penalties for noncompliance on Model Code. 'Every opportunity to shift the dial should be on the table. This includes considering targets in the extended preschool reform agreement,' he said. 'A national register of childcare workers should have been implemented already, and there must be consistency in the implementation of personal phone bans. 'South Australia is imposing $50,000 penalties for noncompliance to the new code. We want to see all states and territories follow suit.'
News.com.au
7 hours ago
- News.com.au
The question Bruce Lehrmann was asked after solicitor's bold claim
Bruce Lehrmann has been asked by journalists whether he was okay as he exited court on Thursday afternoon, after his solicitor told an appeal hearing into his defamation suit loss that reporters didn't have anything nice to say about him. Justice Michael Lee last year found that Lehrmann – on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities – had raped his colleague Brittany Higgins inside Parliament House in 2019. Lehrmann sued Lisa Wilkinson and Ten over Higgins' The Project interview but Justice Lee made damning findings against him and he was subsequently ordered to pay $2m in Ten's legal costs. The former Liberal staffer has now appealed Justice Lee's decision and was represented by solicitor Zali Burrows at an appeal hearing before the Full Court of the Federal Court over the last two days. Ten was represented by Dr Matt Collins SC while barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC appeared for Ms Wilkinson. 'Are you okay, Bruce?' Lehrmann emerged from the court complex on Thursday afternoon alongside his solicitor. He had been present in the court, sitting at the bar table next to Burrows, for the first day and a half of the appeal hearing. But was not inside courtroom 21 after the lunch break on Thursday afternoon. Lehrmann remained inside the court complex for the afternoon session and emerged alongside Burrows. Burrows told the court late on Thursday afternoon that the media pack was not 'going to have anything nice to say to him' or 'even ask are you okay?' As he left the court he was peppered with questions by the media including 'Do you think you made your case?' and 'How do you think the last two days went?' He was also asked: 'Are you okay, Bruce?' Lehrmann did not answer questions as he walked through the media pack and down Macquarie St. Nothing nice to say Burrows has ended the hearing by claiming that none of the journalists waiting outside the court for Mr Lehrmann were going to ask if he's okay. The hearing was supposed to go for three days but has wrapped up after two and the court has reserved its decision. Ms Burrows ended by arguing that Justice Lee's findings had taken a toll on him. 'When Mr Lehrmann leaves the court today, I'm pretty sure no one in the back of the court or any of the reporters downstairs are going to have anything nice to say to him,' Ms Burrows said. 'And not even ask are you okay? Justice Craig Colvin interjected: 'Is this a speech or this a submission?' 'If it wasn't so serious' Meanwhile, Brittany Higgins has made a cryptic Instagram post while the case was going on. Ms Higgins has not been present at the Federal Court for the appeal, which is unsurprising given she is not a party to the proceedings. 'I'm struggling to understand' Burrows has been pulled up by a judge after she suggested that Lehrmann was given a 'consolation prize'. She argued that Justice Lee 'made a new case up?' Justice Michael Wigney replied: 'What new case? You tell me what new case?' Burrows continued: 'It was asserted against Mr Lehrmann … that he violently raped, that it was done in a violent nature. Whereas His Honour found a totally different case as if it was, using the phrase, a soft rape.' Wigney: 'I don't think his honour A) said anything about a violent rape or a soft rape. He made findings about what happened and what Mr Lehrmann's state of mind was. I'm struggling to understand by what you mean that it was a new case.' Justice Wigney said Justice Lee made some findings in Lehrmann's favour after he could not be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of some of Ten's and Wilkinson's claims. Burrows said: 'He should have just found 'that did not occur to the way that she (Ms Higgins) said'. Instead it's like he's given a consolation prize.' Judge Craig Colvin: 'The subject matter does not merit that kind of …' Ms Burrows then said: 'Sorry, your honour.' Burrows cut off Burrows has been cut off by one of the justices overseeing the appeal after making a submission about loud music and screaming inside the ministerial suite. She is arguing that Lehrmann had 'no opportunity' to contradict the version of events found by Justice Lee. Burrows said: 'There were no submissions by Ms Wilkinson and Ten on that case. There were no submissions put to the judge on this. Generally, we say that Mr Lehrmann could have conducted the case differently if the version — that the judge had found — against Mr Lehrmann had been put to him at the beginning. Justice Michael Wigney: 'How?' Burrows replied: 'It could have been, depending on the particular type of allegations, what witnesses could have been called.' Wigney said: 'We're talking about while they were alone in the ministerial suite? Now let's put aside the calling of further witnesses, how could he have conducted his case differently? 'Your Honour, going back on that, let's just say (there was) a version of what happened that there was loud music playing and screaming or something else happening, then he could have called …,' Ms Burrows said. Wigney said: 'This appears entirely hypothetical because no one was suggesting that version of events and no one found that version of events.' Lehrmann absent Lehrmann has sat beside Burrows at the bar table for the first day and a half of the appealing hearing. However he was absent from the courtroom after lunch and is nowhere to be seen. Burrows grilled Burrows is being pressed by one of the three judges overseeing the appeal her claim that Lehrmann was not afforded procedural fairness. She has claimed that some of Justice Lee's findings were different from the case put forward by Ten and Wilkinson and it was not cross examined on them. But Justice Michael Wigney argued that the imputations were not important, but the 'defamatory sting' that he raped his colleague was the 'essential' part of the case. 'Yes, but it comes back down to surely it would have been in the realm of the way the case was pleaded as to what the allegations were,' Burrows argued. 'The way it was pleaded, those imputations pleaded different things such as a forceful rape.' 'Additional time' We've had a delay in the hearing on Thursday after Burrows asked the court for an adjournment. Ms Burrows is due to make oral submissions to the court on the topic of Ten and Wilkinson's qualified privilege defence, which failed at trial. Wilkinson is now attempting to have that finding overturned. Ms Burrows on Thursday afternoon asked the court for an adjournment so that she could begin tomorrow morning. 'Can we commence this tomorrow morning at 10.15, we just require some additional time,' Ms Burrows said. 'I'm also instructed that there's been some assertions in respect of the transcript which may not be correct, we need this time to check.' Justice Michael Wigney denied that request. Ms Burrows began her arguments but shortly after asked for an early lunch break. The court will return at 2.15pm. 'Run a red light' Lehrmann's lawyer has questioned whether Wilkinson would have run a red light if her lawyers told her it was legal. In his trial judgment, Justice Lee made adverse findings against Ms Wilkinson and Ten after she made a Logies speech referencing Higgins' allegations on the eve of Lehrmann's criminal trial. The speech resulted in Chief Justice Lucy McCallum delaying the trial by three months. Ms Chrysanthou has told the court that Ms Wilkinson made the speech after being given repeated legal advice by the network's lawyers, as she argued she acted reasonably. But Ms Burrows said that argument raised the question whether Wilkinson would break the law if her lawyer told her it was okay. '(Wilkinson argues) she is not a lawyer and relied upon the advice of lawyers in respect of the program,' Ms Burrows said in her written submissions. 'This raises the question was it reasonable to rely upon legal advice when in the face of it is plainly wrong, which raises the proposition, if a lawyer tells you that you can run a red light, would you do it? 'With respect to Ms Wilkinson, a sophisticated highly intelligent and experienced journalist, it appears disingenuous to claim that she would follow the advice of lawyers notwithstanding it was obviously bad advice.' 'Whodunnit' Bruce Lehrmann's lawyer has argued that he was not named in The Project broadcast because they were trying to create a 'whodunnit'. Ms Wilkinson has argued that she acted reasonably when preparing the broadcast and has challenged Justice Lee's finding that their qualified privilege defence had failed. Ms Chrysanthou has pointed out that Lehrmann was not named by The Project - but accepts he was identifiable to a small number of people. However, in her written submissions — which were published by the court on Thursday — Ms Burrows argues Ten and Wilkinson did not name him for 'disingenuous' purposes. 'Mr Lehrmann does not agree with Ms Wilkinson's assertion it was a factor to consider on assessing reasonableness, that in effect she should be commended for not naming Mr Lehrmann in the program is viewed is disingenuous, and viewed as a crafted strategy to maximise the ratings of a story, to achieve an exciting air of mystery akin to a 'whodunnit', a common phrase used to ask who committed a crime with the effect of provoking a greater public interest to 'create chatter' a 'buzz', placing the primary focus on the identity of the alleged perpetrator, arguably highlighting the sensationalism of a complex plot-driven story involving political scandal cover up of a rape in Parliament,' she wrote. 'Cover up' Ms Chrysanthou has told the court Justice Lee in his finding was 'distracted' by the 'so-called cover-up' allegation. In his judgment, Justice Lee wrote that 'the allegation of rape was the minor theme, and the allegation of cover-up was the major motif' of The Project broadcast. Ms Chrysanthou told the court on Wednesday: 'His Honour should have been more open to the reasonableness finding because that's an acceptance of the fact because the program really wasn't about Mr Lehrmann.' She also disputed Justice Lee's finding that the broadcast made allegations of 'corrupt conduct'. Ms Chrysanthou said the cover-up allegations would be relevant if Ms Wilkinson considered Higgins' rape allegations 'absurd and fanciful'. 'That just wasn't the way His Honour addressed it,' Ms Chrysanthou said. Justice Michael Wigney said: 'It's of some relevance is it not? 'Because His Honour's reasoning was, given the way this story has been initially presented by (Higgins' partner) Mr (David) Sharaz in particular - that is that it was a political bombshell so to speak - that should have caused her to be even more cautious about her underlying allegation. 'You can't completely disassociate the two.' Qualified privilege Justice Lee did make adverse findings against Wilkinson and Ten after their qualified privilege defence failed. Qualified privilege is a defence to defamation but relies on whether the publisher's conduct was 'reasonable'. Wilkinson is appealing against that and Ms Chrysanthou is arguing that her client acted reasonably when preparing the Project broadcast. 'There was a huge amount of communication between the producers that Ms Wilkinson was excluded from,' Ms Chrysanthou told the court on Thursday. Ten say Lehrmann was 'totally unreliable' Lehrmann has asked that Justice Lee's findings be overturned on appeal, arguing that they differed from the case pleaded by Ten and Wilkinson, as well as the oral evidence at trial. However in the written submissions which were, on Thursday, released by the court, Ten's legal team of Dr Collins and Tim Senior argue: 'None of these submissions is correct.' They say it was not an 'exceptional case' where Justice Lee could not have been able to make findings either way about whether Lehrmann and Higgins should be believed. 'Rather, the primary judge found Mr Lehrmann to be a totally unreliable witness, while being forcefully struck by the credibility of Ms Higgins' oral evidence of the sexual assault,' Ten says in their submissions. Lehrmann contends he was denied 'procedural fairness' because some of Justice Lee's findings were never put to him when he was on the witness stand. It's a proposition that Ten attacked, saying that from the outset of the case they had put forth an alternative case that Higgins was too drunk to give consent. 'He was extensively cross-examined as to his knowledge of Ms Higgins' state of intoxication,' they said. During the trial, Dr Collins asked: 'Now, Mr Lehrmann, did you at any time seek Ms Higgins' consent to have sexual intercourse with you?' Lehrmann replied: 'I didn't have sexual intercourse with her.' 'Denial of natural justice' Ms Burrows told the court on Wednesday that Lehrmann was the victim of procedural unfairness because the findings of Justice Lee were different to the case put forward at trial. 'It's a really, serious unfair denial of natural justice if Mr Lehrmann goes through a trial where it's said 'you are accused of A, B, D, E to Ms Higgins, this is the way it happened. And the judge finds 'well I don't find any of those A, B, C, D, E',' Ms Burrows said. However Justice Michael Wigney replied: 'That's not what happened. He did a find … it was A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I … A number of the matters alleged and particularised were found.' Ms Burrows further argued that it was pleaded by Ten and Wilkinson as a 'violent rape' but Justice Lee found it was a 'non-violent rape'. Justice Craig Colvin replied: 'I'm not sure he found a non-violent rape and I'm not sure that's a concept that I understand.' Ms Burrows told the court that Lehrmann was 'taken by surprise' that Justice Lee made findings that differed from Ms Higgins' account and 'he came up with a different version, a softer version.' 'Australia's most hated man' In his judgment, Justice Lee found that Lehrmann could have only been awarded $20,000 had he won the trial. However Ms Burrows said he should be awarded a substantial amount if he had the findings overturned on appeal. She has pointed to media coverage of the trial, 'social media insults he gets' and other 'harassment'. 'He's pretty much become the national joke,' Ms Burrows said. 'As I previously submitted to this court, he's probably Australia's most hated man.' Ten attack's Lehrmann's 'astonishing' claim Dr Collins on Wednesday attacked Lehrmann's argument that he might have given different evidence had he known the findings that Justice Lee was going to make. At trial, Lehrmann told the court that he had no sexual contact with Ms Higgins at Parliament House. Ms Burrows told the court on Wednesday that he was the victim of procedural fairness and was surprised by Justice Lee's findings. But Dr Collins attacked that argument as 'astonishing' given that he has persistently claimed that he did not have sex with Ms Higgins. 'Our learned friend said today at the bar table that well the unfairness resides in the fact they might have called further evidence, although she backed away from that when questioned about that evidence might have been,' Dr Collins said. 'There were only two people in the room. 'But she said Mr Lehrmann's evidence might have been different. 'That's, with respect, an astonishing submission. 'It could only be that had the pleading alleged a sexual assault in which consent was in question, he would have conceded having sexual intercourse with her and argued that he had her consent or thought he had her consent.'
