Feminist capture of justice system

She added, “If they are telling us that they have suffered harm because of an offence, we believe that in the first instance.” Well, not just in the first instance. Yates apparently clung to her belief in Higgins story even after the police’s extensive investigation revealed her evidence didn’t stack up, and after Higgins’ lies were exposed in cross-examination.

Charged with her mission, Yates used the new Charter of Rights to claim a central role in the investigation leading up to the trial. There are any number of examples of how she manipulated standard procedures to thwart the police investigation:  

• She inserted herself as an unwelcome intermediary between Higgins and the police. According to Detective Superintendent Scott Moller who ran the criminal investigations unit, police felt “Ms Yates was speaking for Ms Higgins and not allowing Ms Higgins to speak”.

• Yates used her Charter of Rights to demand updates on the investigation, and discussed with Drumgold whether he should bypass the police and charge Lehrmann himself.

• Yates objected to Moller telling Higgins she threatened the investigation by talking to the media. “She can’t stop. She’s the face of the movement now,” Yates told him.  

• The Charter of Rights was used to persuade police to allow Higgins to be shown CCTV vision bending normal rules which prevent evidence being shown to witnesses.

• She acted as a conduit for Higgins’ boyfriend, David Sharaz, passing on his email message to police threatening to go to the media if Lehrman wasn’t charged.

• She used Drumgold to thwart Moller’s efforts to contact Higgins directly - police were barred from any interaction with Higgins after Lehrmann was charged.

• She briefed Higgins prior to meetings with politicians on advocacy for sexual abuse victims.

This was just a lead-up to the roll out of a whole new system of “victim-centric, trauma-informed justice” which Yates boasted on ABC radio would “reverberate around the nation.”

(Two months ago I wrote about the abundant evidence demolishing the whole notion of trauma-informed practice, as spelt out in a Centre for Prosecutor Integrity report on “trauma-informed junk science” which quotes an Air Force Office of Special Investigations assessment dismissing such approaches as based on “flawed science” and quoting numerous negative evaluations in journal articles and expert commentary.)

Behind the scenes during the police investigations, pressure from the Higgins-inspired March4Justice led to the establishment of a Sexual Assault, Prevention and Response Steering Committee (SAPR), to cook up recommendations for stitching up accused men. They announced a taskforce to review all ACT decisions since 2015 where alleged perpetrators had ended up not being charged and new procedures to be followed in the future which in effect can ensure all cases are pushed through to court.

Naturally Yates was part of the steering committee responsible for the SAPR, which consulted with, amongst other feminist groups, the Canberra Rape Crisis Centre, where Yates’ mother had worked.

No one looking back at Yates' work history would be surprised by her indifference to men’s rights. She had years of advocacy for LGBTQI organisations and women’s legal groups before working for ACT Legal Aid, which she headed up just prior to taking in her current roles. It’s hardly surprising then, that Bruce Lehrmann was told by ACT Legal Aid that their lawyers weren’t prepared to allow Higgins “to be challenged in court as a liar” and that they wouldn’t use Steve Whybrow as a barrister because he was too aggressive.

That’s the climate Federal police were facing when investigating the Higgins case. Their bosses knew the push was on to find they were undercharging – and sure enough SAPR’s taskforce came up with shockingly low charging rates for the ACT, which police lawyers revealed during the inquiry to be based on wrong data. It was clear the traditional investigatory work required of police was being downgraded, and the police encountered increasing hostility, with Drumgold making comments to the jury in the trial about their poor skill sets and claiming they were boof-heads, with outdated, stereotyped opinions.

It was enlightening during the inquiry watching these police officers being cross-examined by hostile barristers, as they staunchly defended their right to do the work of determining whether there was sufficient evidence to charge Lehrmann. There was a senior officer who threatened to resign if Lehrmann was charged. And the intriguing diary note from the big boss, Policing Commander Michael Chew, apparently commenting on some of Higgins’ evidence: “Everything else is made up.” Naturally he was forced by the lawyers to deny that was the case.

But also chilling to see these officers, particularly Moller who seems a good bloke, forced to mouth the platitudes required for this new feminist climate, giving assurances about the importance of Yates' work, and the value of victim-centric, trauma-informed justice.  One bizarre moment was when Yates' lawyer, while working strenuously to force police to wind back their condemnation of Yates' intervention in the case, paraded the fact that Yates had presented one of the officers with home-made biscuits. When you consider that Yates' mission appears to have been to do police investigators out of a job, this struck me as rather like offering a final fag before the firing squad.

They did their job but it was obvious this showcase was going to trial. Politicians, women’s groups, and the media were baying for blood. And they had Drumgold making it clear he intended to prosecute the case, no matter what.