Don’t Upset The Applegarth

A cynic might say: ‘I hope Channel Seven paid him, or his solicitors, a lot of money, for the consequences it had on his application, if nothing else.’ Rather than lower his public profile and retreat from the media spotlight, the applicant chose for whatever reason to appear more than once on national television and revisit events that had triggered his mental illness in early 2021. He seemingly felt well enough to engage with sections of the national media, and to deal with any resulting further coverage he received from the media outlets he appeared on and other media that followed up on his high-profile appearances.”

– Spoiler alert: Queensland Supreme Court Justice Peter Applegarth is himself the cynic

Justice Applegarth – appointed to the bench by the Bligh Labor government in 2008 – could have upheld Toowoomba magistrate Clare Kelly’s rejection of Bruce Lehrmann’s October application for a mental health dispensation with a straight bat. He could have simply said the 28 year-old former Morrison government staffer and survivor of an infamous show trial in the ACT had advertised his psychological pluck by voluntarily appearing on television. It would still be an improbable and silly rationale, of course. Unemployable and broke, Lehrmann needed the money when he agreed to an interview on Channel Seven earlier this year. He did so then not as a defendant but as a disparaged victim of injustice. Justice Applegarth’s comparison is facile and his medical diagnosis is worthless. The idea that only mentally A-1 people give TV interviews is risible. Brittany Higgins had an it-girl mini-career in the media but walked away from being cross-examined and from Shane Drumgold’s entire circus on mental health grounds. She exited with cash and prizes. But the judge chose not to play a straight bat. He played a florid hook. Nor was this his debut as paladin to the peanut gallery. In light of a well-reported intervention he made nine years ago, the “brutal” mockery of Lehrmann and his defence team could be read as hypocritical.

Firmly on the side of the revolutionaries during the snobby coup against former Chief Justice Tim Carmody, Applegarth took the convention-shredding and balmy step of scolding Premier Campbell Newman before a jury in a totally unrelated murder trial in February 2014. The actual audience for this garrulous cri de coeur, of course, was the press and café society. Jesuit Frank Brennan found it “heartening”. Carmody had offended the delicate nostrils of Queensland’s famously Labor-friendly judiciary by insisting the bench apply the laws and stipulated sentences enacted by the Parliament rather than dilute them while cosplaying social justice heroes. When a law firm representing bikies declared it would advise them to unlawfully ignore court summonses (so as to avoid possible arrest under the LNP government’s stringent anti-OMCG laws), an angry Premier Newman accused some defence lawyers of enabling crime as “hired guns.” This alleged besmirching of a “profession bound by high standards” and not at all motivated by money is what set Justice Applegarth off. Ironically, if Annastacia Palaszczuk loses office next year, the turnstile indulgence of the anti-Carmodites and the carnage it caused will be a big part of the reason why. In any case, Lehrmann’s first interactions with the flighty beaks of Queensland won’t inspire confidence.

This entry was posted in Left-wing hypocrisy, Legal affairs, State politics. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Don’t Upset The Applegarth

  1. C.L. says:

    Before we resume the trial I want to say something that isn’t particularly to do with this trial, but may help you with your jury service if any of you are on another jury in another case.

    You may have read some comments in the media in which a prominent politician described some defence lawyers as hired guns who are paid by criminal gangs.

    Whether the defence is paid by the client or by the client’s family or by Legal Aid, these lawyers are part of an honourable profession bound by high standards and duties to the court and to justice.

    And I’m pleased to say that in this country we have, with very rare exceptions, lawyers who will put their duty to the court and their duty to justice higher than the interests of their clients and winning a case.

    Private barristers, you’ve all seen their names in the papers.

    They’re hired by the state government or the federal government, and so the hired gun label can apply to them as much as to lawyers who defend cases brought by the state.

    Those criminal defence lawyers who are paid by their clients, like the lawyers who prosecute cases for money, are professionally distanced from the people who pay them.

    So if you happen to serve on another jury, or another trial, during your jury service in the next week or two, or in years to come, and there’s a defence lawyer who’s defending someone accused of fraud, tax evasion, drug offences – then don’t be swayed by the idea that they’re part of a fraudulent scheme or they’re part of a tax evasion conspiracy or they’re part of a drug gang or a gang machine or something like that. That’s just nonsense.

    First and foremost, you shouldn’t think like that, because it would ignore the presumption of innocence against someone who’s charged with an offence.

    And if, in the future, you’re acting as a juror in a different trial, ignore ill-informed comments about hired guns, comments which smear hard-working professionals who are doing their duty.’

    Quoted by Renee Viellaris in the Courier Mail, February 11, 2014.

  2. NFA says:

    From the Daily Mail link that C.L. provided above,

    Weeks later, the woman was allegedly speaking to a friend’s mother about the Higgins case when she searched for details on her phone and saw Mr Lehrmann’s photo – and recognised him as the same person who allegedly had sex with her.

    The woman reported the matter to police the next day before making a formal statement. Lehrmann was charged with two counts of rape on January 10. He denies the allegations.

  3. Christine says:

    An excellent column.
    Good to have these reminders.

  4. Buccaneer says:

    Is it rude or premature to wonder aloud as to whether there might be another prosecutor just begging for a taste of the dumgold treatment?

  5. C.L. says:

    We all know he will be committed to stand trial.

    To that extent, the media + mob is part of judicial processes Australia-wide.

    Now, in the internet age Lehrmann’s anonymity was something of a fiction anyway, certainly, but Justice Applegarth’s arguments for refusing to allow him to remain unnamed are shoddy and callous. We heard a lot about Brittany’s mental health burdens but nobody ever cared about Lehrmann’s. The judge straight-up makes fun of him for even claiming to be struggling.

    Note that I have no interest in speculating as to his innocence or guilt. I’m talking about the impartiality of process and the presumption of innocence. We already have extensive press coverage of a Supreme Court judge implying he is a liar.

  6. NFA says:

    Aren’t all Qld public serpent ‘workers’ on holidays to recover from the trauma of the referendum outcome?

  7. SydGal says:

    Thanks, C.L. There is a Courier Mail online story from this evening with a video where a media lawyer almost forgets but then suddenly remembers to add the word “alleged” in his statement to the ABC/Ch 9 journalists. Can’t access it now to include the link.

  8. Rafiki says:

    I respectfully agree with your analysis CL. In effect, Applegarth has called Lehrmann a liar. This could be a ground for an application to permanently stay the process, but the courts are very reluctant to take this step. It looks like Bruce will again face the punishment of the process.
    He might take heart from the high NO vote, if that is read as a protest against wokeism. All he needs is for a sufficient number of jurors who have seen the Higgins allegations for what they are.
    Calls for judge-alone sexual offence trials show that the MeToo followers are concerned that juries will now be less likely to convict.

  9. Boambee John says:

    Perhaps the “good” judge could apply his fine legal mind to the lawfare conducted in the US against any lawyers who have had the temerity to defend Trump since January 2021?

    Or perhaps he would prefer not to.

  10. Entropy says:

    Even if the LNP were to achieve an unlikely victory next year the judiciary are generational ALP appointments. It would take a decade to start restoring some balance and appoint on merit rather than which ALP faction needed a consolation prize for not getting preselection.

  11. bollux says:

    Applegarth was and still is, a Lefty twat. Should have never been allowed near the Bench.

  12. Ed Case says:

    The actual investigators thought the Higgins matter was strong enough to lay charges and so did the investigators in this one.
    This second complainants story boils down to:
    What happened between myself and “Bryce” was weird and concerning, but I wrote it off.
    Some time later, I found out by chance that this guy was facing quite similar charges in Canberra.
    I went straight to the cops.

    Not seeing a problem with this reasoning?

  13. C.L. says:

    The actual investigators thought the Higgins matter was strong enough to lay charges…

    Nope.

    Police did not believe evidence was sufficient to take Bruce Lehrmann to trial, inquiry hears.

  14. Christine says:

    Sex with the proper stranger
    More of the same; comments start up again on the unattractiveness of the accused male.
    He was once very confident, making him highly attractive to a modern woman who is at a bar, and keen. She picked him up/he picked her up. Equals.
    Until modern woman becomes wronged woman, with the upper hand.

  15. C.L. says:

    I should add that when Applegarth gave his nutty address about the Premier to a random jury in a murder trial, he didn’t explain the background..

    To wit, that the lawyers allegedly smeared by Newman had boasted that their policy was to counsel gang members to ignore court summonses.

  16. Ed Case says:

    The original investigators were a Detective and a Detective Seargeant.
    Their notes read that they thought Lehrmann was lying about not having sex witrh Higgins because he was frightened that he would be arrested.
    The Boorman/Muller Executive Minute omitted that crucial piece of information.

  17. Ed Case says:

    Until modern woman becomes wronged woman, with the upper hand.

    Let’s say you were walking home and some local yoof was pushing your lawn mower down the street.
    You rouse on him, he pushes the mowewr back to your place, you write it off, then 3 months later you find out that the kid is an habitual thief.
    Would you have second thoughts about writing it off in the first place, knowing that you’ve encouraged more thieving?

  18. C.L. says:

    He might take heart from the high NO vote, if that is read as a protest against wokeism. All he needs is for a sufficient number of jurors who have seen the Higgins allegations for what they are.

    Wider social-cultural irritation could indeed come into play, Raf, as you suggest. People are beyond fed up. If Lehrmann is committed, I presume the trial will take place in Toowoomba. Not exactly #MeToo central.

  19. Lee says:

    The original investigators were a Detective and a Detective Seargeant.
    Their notes read that they thought Lehrmann was lying about not having sex with Higgins because he was frightened that he would be arrested.

    I’d be frightened that I would be arrested whether I was innocent or not, and I am sure most people would be too.

    The cop’s reasoning means, or is evidence of nothing.

  20. C.L. says:

    No, Ed, the “original investigators” believed Higgins’ accusations were worthless.

    So much so that he threatened to resign if the matter proceeded and Lehrmann was convicted.

  21. Ed Case says:

    Marcus Boorman is an Inspector.
    He was not the one of the original investigators.
    That was the Evidence of Superintendent Scott Moller at the Inquiry.
    Tecdeschi had the diaries of the investigators who originally interviewed Lehrmann, that’s what they wrote.
    Moller was asked if it was the normal practice for a Superintendent or even an Inspector to sign Charges.
    He had to admit that a Detective Seargeant would normally do that, admitted that he had never done that before as either a Superintendent or and Inspector and avoided answering the question of whether he had ever heard of it happening previously in his 30+ year Police career in the NSW Police and the AFP.

  22. Boambee John says:

    Not only does Ed still have the hots for Mizzz Knickerless, he is so infatuated that he has forgotten the evidence. Moller testified that he signed the charge because he did not wish to order a junior officer to sign such a dubious document.

  23. Buccaneer says:

    It’s a tactic, just like the Jekyll and Hyde posts that seem to agree with the vibe but slip in a dishonest statement that contradicts what he just said. Like graffiti on a wall, pointless and unedifying.

  24. Christine says:

    Ed’s pinch’n’return comparison.
    Yes, some people might write it off.
    But later exchange messages with the mower thief ? – in the hope of what exactly.

    Expect to hear the old “If I can spare one other woman ……”
    But of course.
    All the dismal details of this couple’s encounter are laid out.
    But there’s this:
    I think it makes our mower-thief look good.

  25. Ed Case says:

    But later exchange messages with the mower thief ? – in the hope of what exactly.
    Her mower wasn’t stolen, Christine.
    Keep in mind, she knew him as “Bryce”, women have different motivations in pursuing relationships than men do, and once she became aware of his true identity [by chance], she acted swiftly.
    It’s reported that the Complainant strongly opposed his identity continuing to be suppressed.

  26. NFA says:

    Ed, the ‘Complainant’ didn’t do anything for weeks until she found out who she had the loose shag with… Britny 2.0.

  27. NFA says:

    I wonder what Briny 2.0 will call her book?

  28. NFA says:

    from the link C.L. provides,

    The alleged rape victim claimed she met Mr Lehrmann on a night out that began when she joined friends at the Powerhouse music venue in Toowoomba.

    After drinking with friends, she then went to a strip club called The Vault, where she consumed more alcohol and met Mr Lehrmann.

    Don’t you wish your son met her…

  29. Christine says:

    Yes, Ed, he called himself “Bryce”.
    Bryce’s actions weren’t judged too disgraceful, initially.
    Much later, a discovery –
    absent Bryce and high-profile Bruce are one and the same.
    Then Bryce’s actions become disgraceful and must be reported swiftly.

    It’s probably a good thing to have a sympathetic understanding of these complainants and their motives.
    I don’t.
    I think you’d have a drink with the mower thief.

  30. C.L. says:

    She says he introduced himself as “Bryce.”

    Or maybe that’s what she heard – being drunk, high on drugs and in a boisterous strip club at the time.

    I’m sure they introduced themselves to each other officially as they enjoyed McDonalds in the morning – or maybe via the friendly texts they exchanged for days afterwards.

  31. Rafiki says:

    None of what now follows should have any bearing on how Justice Lee decides the coming defamation suits. OTOH, if Lee J finds that the evidence does not warrant a finding that Lehrmann raped Higgins, this might work in his favour if the Toowoomba allegations get to trial. I’m speculating that a juror might think ‘Lehrmann is not a rapist’.

  32. NFA says:

    From C.L.’s link,

    Later, police allege the woman took a taxi with Mr Lehrmann to his friend’s house.

    They had sex once that night and twice in the morning, but the woman alleges the last two times were not consensual because he allegedly wasn’t wearing a condom.

    Failing to wear a condom without a partner’s permission is considered sexual assault under Queensland law.

    Some Queenslanders only work out weeks later they can get a book deal.

    Red Pirate Pete, where are you?

  33. NFA says:

    Police will allege the woman told Mr Lehrmann she needed a morning-after pill and they drove to a chemist in a farm ute.

    Afterwards, she allegedly asked Mr Lehrmann to take her home and he stopped at McDonald’s on the way.

  34. Alfonso says:

    MR Lehrman. Serially innocent. But constantly in strife. Sadly unwell and in need of anonymity. Except when he gets paid to appear on national tv.

  35. Ed Case says:

    He was broke, Alfonso.
    Defending his impeccable rep against shameless Aussie hussies doesn’t [sob] qualify for Legal Aid, you know?

  36. Pogria says:

    She says he introduced himself as “Bryce.”

    Or maybe that’s what she heard – being drunk, high on drugs and in a boisterous strip club at the time.

    CL, that was my first thought also. You wouldn’t even have to be drunk or high to hear Bryce instead of Bruce. The “young ones” don’t exactly enunciate well these days. Another loss perpetuated by our disastrous Education system.

  37. Lee says:

    Sadly unwell and in need of anonymity. Except when he gets paid to appear on national tv.

    Sounds like you’re describing Brittany.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *