Craig McLachlan has avoided possible jail by winning the sexual assault case against him today (15/12/20) but in doing so he has almost certainly lost his defamation case and his career is in tatters as the magistrate found his sexual behaviour was “lewd” and “inappropriate”.
One inference that could possibly be drawn from the Magistrate’s comments is that Craig McLachlan is a sexual predator which will make it almost impossible for McLachlan to win his defamation case against the ABC, SMH and actress Christie Whelan Browne.
Channel Nine reported today (15/12/20)
The magistrate told the court the four female complainants were “brave and honest witnesses” and did not consent to multiple incidents of inappropriate touching.
However, she said prosecutors did not meet the standard of proving the crimes had occurred.
Among the allegations were that McLachlan touched a woman near her genitals during a live show, ran his hand up the leg of a woman and other instances of kissing
Magistrate Wallington today hit out at McLachlan, describing him as an egotistical and self-entitled man who either thought the women were consenting to the inappropriate and lewd behaviour, or that they would think it was funny.
The magistrate also took aim at McLachlan’s defence lawyer Mr Littlemore for his line of questioning towards the complainants and what she said was a victim-blaming attitude towards the women. (
Click here to read more)
Craig McLachlan has gone on the attack and is using the victim shaming strategy in an attempt to fend off multiple sexual assault and harassment allegations by numerous women. It comes across as a ridiculous strategy by a very desperate man with few options who is taking the advice of fools and it’s bound to fail.
McLachlan, who hit the headlines a few weeks ago with multiple allegations of sexual harassment and abuse, filed defamation proceedings against Fairfax Media, the ABC and actress Christie Whelan Browne on Thursday 1/2/18.
News of Craig McLachlan instituting the defamation case on Thursday was tightly controlled and managed by Seven West Media’s Channel 7. Seven are in effect Craig’s new employer as they now own the rights to the Dr Blake TV series for 2018 which was previously on the ABC for 5 years. (Click here to read the full article)
McLachlan was charged with criminal offences relating to the same matters, so the defamation case was stayed until the criminal matter was finalised.
It is not uncommon for people to use defamation cases to try and conceal the truth and in this case, it has backfired badly for McLachlan.
Unless there is an appeal by the prosecution the criminal charges have now been finalised which means the defamation case can now proceed. And that is where the problems now begin for McLachlan. Does he continue with the defamation case and likely lose given the comments by the magistrate or does he withdraw the proceedings and pay for costs for the other parties? He damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.
No matter what the ABC, SMH and actress Christie Whelan Browne have said about Craig McLachlan it can’t be as damaging to McLachlan’s reputation as what Magistrate Wallington has said in her judgment. Look up the definition of “lewd” and it says:
Lewd: crude and offensive in a sexual way. Synonyms: vulgar · crude · smutty · dirty · filthy · obscene · pornographic · coarse · tasteless
Magistrate Wallington also said: “the four female complainants were “brave and honest witnesses” and did not consent to multiple incidents of inappropriate touching” which would greatly help the ABC, SMH and actress Christie Whelan Browne utilise the justification (truth) defence in McLachlan’s defamation case against them.
I think McLachlan’s career is fairly well over as I can’t see producers of TV and the theatre hiring him anytime soon.
Please use Twitter, Facebook, email and the other buttons below and help promote this article.
Kangaroo Court of Australia is an independent website and is reliant on donations to keep publishing so please click on the Patreon button below and support independent journalism.
If you would like to support via PayPal use the button below or for other donation options click here to go to the Donations page.
Thank you for your support.
For the KCA t-shirt shop click here.
Related
I was invited by a friend who worked at channel 10 to a small gathering of mainly Neighbours employees to a pre-screening of the movie Fatal Attraction in late 1987 at, I think it was, Universal Pictures private cinema, in Spencer Street, Melbourne, where I met Craig MacLachlan and his then wife. I had barely been introduced to them when he suddenly grabbed my arm and held it on one of his pectoral muscles and then pumped this muscle several times. (I was 19 at the time.) Some of the small number of people present, which included Guy Pearce and his then wife, laughed quite hesitantly, as did I. Somehow, I’ve never forgotten it. I don’t feel traumatised by it, but feel it was inappropriate and certainly unasked for.
So the first-hand evidence of four women (whom the judge said she believed were brave and honest) is not deemed enough to convict? I’d like to know what better evidence there is????
I have been too riddled with anxiety over posting this comment to even look at responses until now. I honestly feel that this type of entitled, unasked for behaviour probably then escalated over many years if nobody complained. As I said, I was a 19yo and I was very naive, coming from regional Victoria to study and work and I was studying with the woman who invited me. I had no reference for this behaviour at the time which seemed to be laughed off by the other ‘celebrity’-type people there. I posted this primarily because it does not surprise me that Craig McLachlan’s behaviour has, perhaps, allegedly, escalated in the decades since. Now if I’d been ‘grabbed by the pussy’ then, or had my vagina traced out, would things have been different? Would I have complained to someone? I’d like to think I could have.
It was 1987. Craig was 21. You did not feel traumatised by it.
Those were the days.
Different era sure, but still a personality indicator. I would have laughed awkwardly at the ‘macho man’ too.
Obviously a magistrate making a moral judgement, would have thought the accused would be either ‘Guilty’ or ‘Not Guilty’ and not half way between, if deemed Not Guilty no further comment required, nothing unusual from Judiciary within any jurisdiction within Australia.
I really think it’s like political correctness…gone way too far! Craig MacLachlan seems like a “touchy feely” sort of fellow who is affectionate by nature and sadly us woman will kill off all affectionate men! We’ll be sorry then!
I knew we had gone too far when a gentleman asked my daughter if she would “be offended” if he offered to help her when she was trying to change a punctured tyre on her car!
Agreed, Toby. If deemed “Not Guilty” no further comment is required. By anyone.
I think the comments were fine. The magistrate was effectively following the Scottish tradition of a “not proven” verdict. She affirmed that the criminal charges had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. But she’s not obliged to give MacLachlan a free pass on his character. Good on her. Sod him.
You are 100% exactly Right. Its overboard. My friend & I were discussing “Wolf Whistles”, Smiles, fun, compliments, introductions, requests for Real Dates etc etc .. in lieu of Dangerous Dating (RIP off) sites. . At least in old way of meeting you were in company, could read eyes & body language & hear FACT in lieu of Crap of today & also Women Suing for old Stuff that they too encourages. Sure, there are some Sickos out there but the greater majority are good guys. The Almighty Dollar & Judicial “Crap” seems more beneficial to some, instead of sorting out “On tge Spit”! Like a simple, hands off, or Stop it, or NO!! Or a slap like old. Ok.. glad he got a Not Guilty..the Jury after all, is US!
Anyone else think it’s a bit rich for a member of Australia’s judiciary to be calling anybody outside of that circle, “egotistical and self-entitled”? To me, that’s the pot calling the kettle black. Time for a root and branch investigation into our corrupt and incompetent, egotistical and self-entitled judicature.
Whatever people, get a grip and have some dignity, sorry but that kind of behaviour is not okay ❗ in my books’, that guy needs a bracelet on his ankle and needs to be watched. Maybe it doesn’t warrant jail time but certainly not a win. I would have pushed him over or publicly insulted his tiny enadequate little brain on a stick. An old wise lady once said to me: “men, they unzip their fly’s and their ficken brain’s fall out” that’s a fact.
Its a sad day Jan Elise when one has to consider would I say this to another man. Recently I made a flirtatious comment to a hospital administration employee who laughed it off but another employee instigated an inquiry into the incident. Two days later was confronted with a letter and phone call asking if I had made a comment. I was recognised wearing a hat with a colourful hatband. I admitted to the misdeed. My oncology treatment was then threatened if I should repeat the offence. A depressing death sentence! I like to amble thru the day making others smile. It appears to me that I can longer voice an opinion particularly when paying a woman a compliment. So much for free speech!
What was the comment ❓ obviously offensive if you’re not prepared to repeat it. Sorry to hear of your condition it’s a long road but have faith and positive strengths you will get through.
Not “obviously offensive” at all. So many words are taken out of context these days, for litigation purposes, I am surprised the courts are not booked out for the next ten years. I thank Heaven I was brought up at a time when people had a sense of humour and enough brains to just ignore other peoples minor misdeeds. How this stupid judge find McLaughlin guilty and not guilty at the same time is beyond me. If the Prosecution did not prosecute their case enough the person is not guilty and they are the only words that should have been spoken. Some of the Judiciary seem to think they are above the rest of us. Maybe they should remember who pays their slaries before they make too many smart remarks.
Sexual Assault? Like RAPE? Is that seriously what we’re talking about here? Craig may have engaged in some pretty cringy behaviour on occasion, For all I know the guy may be a complete 24/7 douche, but getting a bit carried away while playing the role of Frankenfurter is barely even worth mentioning until one of the “victims” actually asks him to stop it and he keeps going.
The magistrate knew very well about the defamation case and quite deliberately decided to unduely influence it.
This sort of rubbish is how Trump gets supporters. Is it really making a better world?
“This sort of rubbish is how Trump gets supporters.”
Seems a bit gratuitous, judgemental, and not really relevant.
Bit odd that the Magistrate attacked the performance of the Defence Barrister, history clearly shows all levels of the judiciary happy to let defence lawyers rubbish victims to the extent the victim breaks down, particularly in relation to clergy from the Catholic church charged with acts of molesting children, read the stories of Louise Milligan “Witness” from ABC and the horror stories inflicted by defence barristers on witnesses and victims, who have free rein undeterred by the judiciary to harrass whom they please, yet the magistrate in these mentioned matters took it upon herself to critize the defence Barrister, shades of the US TV star Judge Judy grandstanding aiming for a job in Hollywood!!
It is very difficult to comment as only those in court hear the evidence. But that said, I do find Magistrate Belinda Walllington’s comments about Craig McLachlan puzzling. She acquitted him, but it appears under sufferance. From her comments, you would think he’d been found guilty. Praising the women for their courage whilst condemning the man she acquitted. I also think those who bring charges against someone should have their names published. It is unfair that the high profile defendant is marketed to make money for the media, while the accusers are given anonymity. Because are we not all innocent till proven guilty.
Many here appear naive as to the Rule of Law that .the prosecution must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Magistrate Wallington was not convinced that the evidence did so. However went on and made comments as to McLachlan’s behaviour which is that of Jack the Lad and not uncommon in that environment however does not make it acceptable to all. The magistrates comments in regard to some footballers or ex – footballers now on trial for more serious allegations where the regard to the complainant seems non-existent
You should change your Dictionary. Mine gives , ” LEWD, showing, or intended to excite, lust or sexual desire.” Actors and producers would be well aware of the intent of the cult show. The plaintiffs shouild move on. More power to Craig.