Shane Sea Patrol

26 Responses to Shane Sea Patrol

1. C.L. says:

   22 May, 2023 at 12:42 am

   DPP Shane Drumgold’s CCTV evidence tampering claim ‘vexatious’.

   The senior police officer who led the investigation of Brittany Higgins’s rape allegations has slammed Shane Drumgold for suggesting that police deliberately destroyed or deleted CCTV footage of Ms Higgins and Bruce Lehrmann, claiming the chief prosecutor had embarrassingly confused a Four Corners re-enactment with the real thing.

   Detective Superintendent Scott Moller has in a statement told the Sofronoff inquiry that the inference of corrupt or dishonest behaviour was “vexatious, without any merits and offensive to an extremely committed, hardworking and competent investigation team”.

   Mr Drumgold claimed CCTV footage showed Ms Higgins and Mr Lehrmann arriving at Parliament House on the night of her alleged rape. The police were certain the video never existed, but Mr Drumgold was insistent he had personally watched it on a USB drive provided by police but then returned to them.

   The Australian has previously revealed that the suggestion of evidence-tampering caused a serious rift between police and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

   In a submission to the inquiry, Mr Drumgold said in the footage he recalled “Ms Higgins could be seen swaying behind his (Mr Lehrmann’s) right shoulder. She moved her right hand to a wall as if to stabilise herself.”

   Superintendent Moller, however, said it appeared that Mr Drumgold “had confused footage from a Four Corners release where they developed a recreation of the event with the investigators recovered CCTV footage”.

   The Four Corners program featured various re-enactments and night-time exterior shots of Parliament House, although none showing the precise scene as described by Mr Drumgold.

   Superintendent Moller said the investigating team diverted its efforts and worked for weeks to ­attempt to identify the footage and if such footage ever existed, they had never located it.

   “This caused a significant divide between the investigation team and the DPP,” he said.

   “These undertones in relation to the investigators’ corrupt or dishonest behaviour continued throughout the prosecution and were entirely without foundation and offensive to our investigation team.”

   Mr Drumgold told the inquiry that he did not think the footage had been deliberately deleted but that was not the impression of police at the time, and the insinuation caused a further breakdown in an already fraught relationship between the investigation team and the DPP.

   “I believe Mr Drumgold’s own actions at this early time alienated the investigators and ACTP management from the DPP,” Superintendent Moller says in his statement.

   Mr Drumgold’s co-counsel Skye Jerome said she “was sure” she saw the footage, although they watched it on separate occasions, and told investigators she hoped “nothing unlawful” had happened to the footage.

   Ms Jerome said she recalled a woman and a man standing at a gate with a buzzer and walking through the gate.

   Her account of what she saw has been partially redacted by the inquiry.

   “I recall that the omitted CCTV footage depicted Ms Higgins and Mr Lehrmann [redacted] at APH (Australian Parliament House). I recall that Mr Lehrmann stood in front of Ms Higgins who was a ­little unsteady/shifted her body weight. I recall that I briefly saw the pair [redacted].”

   If it existed, the footage would have countered the view of police that Ms Higgins was not as heavily intoxicated – “10/10 drunk” – as she had claimed.

   Ms Jerome says in her statement that police had shown her other CCTV footage and “focused their observations of a sober woman entering Parliament House”.

   A clearly annoyed Mr Drumgold complained that the missing footage, although not crucial to the case, would have formed part of the trial brief because it was mat­erial to a fact in issue.

   ——————-

   Janet Albrechtsen and Stephen Rice in The Australian.
2. NFA says:

   22 May, 2023 at 5:20 am

   “Show me the man and I will show you the crime”!
3. Entropy says:

   22 May, 2023 at 6:27 am

   If this footage exists surely the security at Parliament House would still have it.
   Why has no one asked them?
4. Entropy says:

   22 May, 2023 at 6:28 am

   In fact security guards seem curiously absent from most of the court case coverage I have seen.
5. Ed Case says:

   22 May, 2023 at 6:43 am

   The AFP didn’t tell Shane that it was an ABC reenactment?
   Why did they provide an ABC reenactment?
   And what happened to the CCTV footage?
   No one is seriously claiming that Parliament House doesn’t have CCTV cameras at the entrances to the building, if not in all the hallways and Meeting Rooms?
6. Perfidious Albino says:

   22 May, 2023 at 7:14 am

   Ed – the AFP provided all the cctv footage they had, it just didn’t show what Drumgold was expecting, because he was expecting the 4-corners re-enactment.
7. Rafiki says:

   22 May, 2023 at 7:17 am

   The heat should come on Ms Jerome too, and maybe it will.

   The other matter in which she may have played a role is the failure of the prosecution to inform the defence of Fiona Brown’s desire to be recalled so that she might dispute Higgins’ evidence that she had been pressured by Reynolds and Brown. As I see it, this is a critical episode in this disgraceful saga.

   This claim was the foundation for the relentless and possibly very successful attacks by Gallagher and Wong.

   If, on the trial, Brown’s rebuttal had, in the eyes if the jury, badly damaged Higgins’ credibility, Lehrmann may have been acquitted. Not necessarily of course, as it’s possible that at least one juror was a committed MeToo believer.

   Sofronoff must choose which matters he will pursue. Let’s hope this is one of them.
8. Boambee John says:

   22 May, 2023 at 7:37 am

   If Dumbgold had a copy, why did he not copy it for future review?
9. Ed Case says:

   22 May, 2023 at 7:39 am

   If only one Juror was holding oput for Conviction, the Judge wouldna kept sending the Jury back, because it woulda been obvious there wasn’t any possibility of a Conviction from 1/11 down.
10. Ed Case says:

    22 May, 2023 at 7:43 am

    The other matter in which she may have played a role is the failure of the prosecution to inform the defence of Fiona Brown’s desire to be recalled so that she might dispute Higgins’ evidence that she had been pressured by Reynolds and Brown. As I see it, this is a critical episode in this disgraceful saga.

    Reynolds and Cash had that desire as well, so Drumgold had them declared Hostile Witnesses.
    The Defence still coulda called them, but didn’t.
    Same goes for Brown.
11. Buccaneer says:

    22 May, 2023 at 8:40 am

    If only one Juror was holding oput for Conviction, the Judge wouldna kept sending the Jury back, because it woulda been obvious there wasn’t any possibility of a Conviction from 1/11 down.

    Ed, I’m sure you can provide some evidence of another case where that has happened, particularly one this high profile.
12. Buccaneer says:

    22 May, 2023 at 8:41 am

    The scene is nicely set for a senate inquiry replete with questions from Sarah Sea Patrol
13. Ed Case says:

    22 May, 2023 at 8:50 am

    Here’s the process:
    Jury Foreman tells Judge that a verdict is unable to be reached.
    Does Judge
    #1. request the numbers from Jury Foreman to decide whether they should continue deliberations, or
    #2. tosses a coin?
14. cuckoo says:

    22 May, 2023 at 8:58 am

    Oh, he’s sure he saw the CCTV footage, in just the same way that Gillian Triggs was “sure” she had seen armed security guards in the Manus Island detention centre.
15. rosie says:

    22 May, 2023 at 9:13 am

    Very serious allegations that the AFP destroyed CCTV footage, especially if they’d dumb enough to let the DPP have a look, they should also have made a copy available to defence council, shouldn’t they?
16. Ed Case says:

    22 May, 2023 at 9:16 am

    Drumgold is being Gaslit.
    How is he expected to know that something provided as Evidence by the AFP was an ABC reenactment?
    Clearly it couldn’t have been Evidence, other than evidence that the AFP were jerking him around and taking a personal rather than professional interest in the Lehrmann Case.
17. Christine says:

    22 May, 2023 at 9:17 am

    I’d forgotten about Gillian Triggs and her beliefs.
18. Buccaneer says:

    22 May, 2023 at 10:09 am

    Ed back to prove his comprehension skills are below poor again, the only person gaslighting Ed is you, here.

    In a case where a unanimous verdict is required, the judge sends the jury back until the jury foreman declares that there is no likelihood of a verdict, even then they usually send them back at least once. In a high media profile case with political ramification, there was no way the judge was going to declare no verdict. No one wants a retrial.

    Ed, you are so ignorant, that even when people point out you’re on the wrong track, you don’t bother to enquire as to what you could do to remedy your own incuriousity.
19. Ed Case says:

    22 May, 2023 at 10:21 am

    In a high media profile case with political ramification, there was no way the judge was going to declare no verdict. No one wants a retrial.

    The Judge can’t declare No Verdict.
    The Jury Foreman had already told Judge twice that they couln’t reach a unanimous Verdict.
    Plenty of Criminal Trials end with the Jury unable to reach a Verdict.
    Judge calls a Mistrial.
    Do you seriously claim that the Judge and counsel wouldn’t be informed of the numbers?
    How is it fair to a Defendant if a Jury keeps getting sent back to deliberate some more if only 1 Juror is hanging out for a Conviction?
    Not to mention a colossal waste of a Court’s time?
20. Boambee John says:

    22 May, 2023 at 10:26 am

    Grandpa Cletus

    Quote us the relevant guidelines for jury considerations.
21. Buccaneer says:

    22 May, 2023 at 10:39 am

    Ed, I was a juror in a case where the jury was ordered back by the judge 5 or 6 times due to one juror. No one wants a mistrial, the judges have more than enough work to do, many of these cases take years to appear before court. Court is a place no one really wants to be. Your assessment is juvenile and self serving.

    If a jury advises the court that it is unable to reach a verdict after deliberations, as it did in the trial of Mr Daniels, the judge will give the jury what is known as a ‘Black Direction’.

    The Black Direction derives its name from the High Court of Australia case of Black v The Queen [1993] HCA 71; (1993) 179 CLR 44.

    The Direction seeks to fulfil the utilitarian objective of producing a verdict without putting undue pressure on jurors to change their minds.

    The Direction is found at page 51 of the judgement, during which Chief Justice Mason and Justices Brennan, Dawson and McHugh prescribe it in the following terms:

    ‘Members of the jury, I have been told that you have not been able to reach a verdict so far.

    I have the power to discharge you from giving a verdict but I should only do so if I am satisfied that there is no likelihood of genuine agreement being reached after further deliberation.

    Judges are usually reluctant to discharge a jury because experience has shown that juries can often agree if given more time to consider and discuss the issues.

    But if, after calmly considering the evidence and listening to the opinions of other jurors, you cannot honestly agree with the conclusions of other jurors, you must give effect to your own view of the evidence.

    Each of you has sworn or affirmed that you will give a true verdict according to the evidence. That is an important responsibility. You must fulfil it to the best of your ability.

    Each of you takes into the jury room your individual experience and wisdom and you are expected to judge the evidence fairly and impartially in that light.

    You also have a duty to listen carefully and objectively to the views of every one of your fellow jurors.

    You should calmly weigh up one another’s opinions about the evidence and test them by discussion.

    Calm and objective discussion of the evidence often leads to a better understanding of the differences of opinion which you may have and may convince you that your original opinion was wrong.

    That is not, of course, to suggest that you can, consistently with your oath or affirmation as a juror, join in a verdict if you do not honestly and genuinely think that it is the correct one.

    Experience has shown that often juries are able to agree in the end, if they are given more time to consider and discuss the evidence.

    For that reason, judges usually request juries to re-examine the matters on which they are in disagreement and to make a further attempt to reach a verdict before they may be discharged.

    So, in the light of what I have already said, I ask you to retire again and see whether you can reach a verdict.’
22. Ed Case says:

    22 May, 2023 at 10:43 am

    Haynesy’s first Trial ended in a Mistrial.
    You’re saying the NSWDPP decided to try him again despite having no knowledge of the Mistrial jury numbers?
    Some Mistrials are prosecuted again, some aren’t.
    Assuming the Evidence is unc hanged, what criteria could there be for prosecuting again?
23. Ed Case says:

    22 May, 2023 at 10:46 am

    Ed, I was a juror in a case where the jury was ordered back by the judge 5 or 6 times due to one juror.
    Uh huh.
    That one juror was the only one holding out for Not Guilty, right?
24. Buccaneer says:

    22 May, 2023 at 11:00 am

    Haynesy’s first Trial ended in a Mistrial.
    You’re saying the NSWDPP decided to try him again despite having no knowledge of the Mistrial jury numbers?
    Some Mistrials are prosecuted again, some aren’t.
    Assuming the Evidence is unc hanged, what criteria could there be for prosecuting again?

    Genius, remind us, what did the ACT DPP decide to do in the Lehrmann case?
25. Jed says:

    23 May, 2023 at 5:57 pm

    The ACT DPP comes across as an idiot. Just goes to show they’re not that bright. He doesn’t present as the highly intelligent person you’d expect, or hope, would occupy that role. One can only assume he’s played a good political game over the years.
26. Buccaneer says:

    24 May, 2023 at 4:27 pm

    Still waiting for those bombshells about the ACT police.