They’ll probably try to get him a job with the CorruptFL.
Criminal standard of proof is much higher (beyond a reasonable doubt compared to probability). Evidence could also need to meet a higher test of fact, as compared to ‘substantially true’
2 Likes
I’m going to tell my kids that screenshot is the Mona Lisa
1 Like
I am too, even though it’s a pretty sad day really. I suppose it’s important to separate “happy justice was done” from “disappointed that an Australian soldier behaved this way”.
3 Likes
Kerry’s paper
“Bulk”? How about all?
Was it his Hale school mate, Christian Porter who also claimed he substantively won his defamation case against the ABC?
Birds of a feather.
1 Like
My reading of the live blog on ABC and The Guardian was the bits BRS “won” were that it was proved that the media had impugned his reputation with their allegations.
Unfortunately for BRS, the bits he lost were that the 10 of the allegations were found to be substantially true, 3 were contextually true, and 2 allegations were not demonstrated to be true but as the imputations associated with these were the same as the other allegations, it doesn’t;t really matter if they were true or not.
Some win that is! He proved they impugned his reputation by alleging he was involved in murder - but the court found the allegation was backed by sufficient evidence to to be true on the balance of probabilities.
EDIT: IANAL, so those familiar with very legal questions can tell me if I got it right.
5 Likes
Is this really an issue if the allegations are basically proven?
Yeh, we besmirched is reputation by calling him a murderer and war criminal. But that’s been proven so what!
2 Likes
Yes, completely moot.
Its like saying to the kids “Yes your brother called you a ■■■■■■■■, but that is because you are.”
3 Likes
Just not the criminal threshold is higher than civil.
1 Like
To the extent of the burden of proof is balance of probability versus beyond reasonable doubt.
1 Like
Probably need to be careful about the language in the thread that this was a civil matter.
1 Like
“The West” has dropped the silly “bulk” comment and it’s now just saying he lost.
4 Likes
Yes, he was the complainant in a civil case.
Losing a defamation case does not turn him into a criminal.
An awful lot of the evidence in the defamation case may not become public, on security grounds and possibly to maintain the anonymity of witnesses. Parts of this case were held in closed session.
2 Likes
That’s incorrect, no such finding. The judge found some assertions of murder to be substantially or contextually true, not whether he committed war crimes.
You’d think you’d run the headlines by legal before publishing
1 Like
No point - Truth/contextual truth has been established as a defence to the defamatory imputation that BRS committed war crimes
1 Like
I think regardless of the double-speak and legal jargon, we can all just agree that BRS can go and do one
2 Likes
McKenzie calling someone a liar. Pot kettle.
4 Likes
The Rage has toned down its headlines, it has now dropped the line that BRS is a proven war criminal.
1 Like