Australian Federal Police

AFP Detective Scott Moller committed perjury at the ACT Inquiry trying to conceal aiding and abetting Bruce Lehrmann

Detective Superintendent Scott Moller has blatantly committed perjury at the ACT Police Corruption Inquiry when he gave evidence on Tuesday the 23rd of May and the 2 key witnesses are Bruce Lehrmann’s barristers Steve Whybrow and John Korn.

Steve Whybrow and John Korn have in effect accused Detective Superintendent Scott Moller of helping them with Bruce Lehrmann’s defence and that is why Scott Moller refuted their version of events when he was in the witness stand.

The dispute in evidence between Scott Moller and Steve Whybrow is really Moller’s downfall as least as far as these key issues are concerned. But I will start off with the John Korn issue first which is minor in comparison.

John Korn conversation

John Korn was Bruce Lehrmann’s first barrister before Steve Whybrow took over. On Tuesday the 23rd of May, as per the below video, barrister Mark Tedeschi, who is representing whistleblower Shane Drumgold, asked Scott Moller if he remembers saying to John Korn, “there was some important text messages in the brief but the Cellebrite report was huge”? Scott Moller said no.

I couldn’t find that exchange in the documents but John Korn is due to give evidence on Thursday (1/6/23). The bottom line is that is one persons word against another’s but if true would show Scott Moller giving helpful legal advice to Bruce Lehrmann’s barrister. The value of the Korn alleged conversation with Moller is that it is consistent with Steve Whybrow’s claim below.

Steve Whybrow conversation

Detective Superintendent Scott Moller wrote an executive briefing document that has become known as the “Moller Report” where he went on a personal jihad against Brittany Higgins accusing her of being “evasive, uncooperative and manipulative”.

Initially it was decided that the Moller Report was protected by legal privilege so a copy was not given to the Lehrmann’s lawyers in the brief of evidence.

Lehrmann’s barrister Steve Whybrow found out about the “Moller Report” and he phoned Scott Moller to ask for a copy. Scott Moller gave evidence, as per the below video, that Steve Whybrow said to him on the phone that he believed the document was a “decision making document, not a legal document” and he wanted a copy.

Steve Whybrow in effect says the opposite and says in the below video and email that Scott Moller said to him, “Steve I know the document you are talking about. It was created by me. It was not created to get legal advice.”

Steve Whybrow’s version of events is the only one that makes sense because how else would Steve Whybrow have known it was not a legal document. And if Whybrow’s version is true, and taken into context with the rest of the email below, it again shows Scott Moller helping Lehrmann by giving advice to his lawyers.

You should definitely watch the below video because you can see Scott Moller duck and weave as Shane Drumgold’s barrister Mark Tedeschi has him cornered and Moller knows it and gets aggressive at the end.

Below is Steve Whybrow’s email documenting the phone conversation with Scott Moller:

Steve Whybrow letter page 2

The real danger for Scott Moller and the AFP is the last line above in the email where he says when he rang the AFP’s phone number “131 444” he was advised “the call would be recorded so there should be a record of it”.

The ACT Inquiry has previously issued subpoenas to the AFP for various documents etc so they should issue another subpoena to the AFP for the recording of the call between Scott Moller and Steve Whybrow.

Steve Whybrow did eventually receive a copy of the Moller Report and it was leaked to News Corp’s Janet Albrechtsen less than 24 hours after the DPP announced it would discontinue the prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann while Brittany Higgins was is hospital because of the stress of the matter.

Steve Whybrow has recently done an interview in print and on video with News Corp’s Janet Albrechtsen promoting what a great barrister he is.

It is a bit rich for Scott Moller to have accused Brittany Higgins of being “evasive, uncooperative and manipulative” when Scott Moller was exactly that, which is better known as perjury, on the witness stand under oath as per the above video.

If the ACT Inquiry subpoena the recording of the phone call between Scott Moller and Steve Whybrow it will be game over for Moller. The above evidence of Scott Moller committing perjury is only the tip of the iceberg and I will publish more evidence in the near future.

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.

14 replies »

  1. We’re it not for Kangaroo Court, the public would never have known about the misleading disinformation that has dominated this investigation and possibly the former trial.

    • We must remember AFP was found by the Cwth Ombudsman of breaching metadata regulations thousands of times, action taken by previous Federal Attorney General, none zilch zero, nothing surprising about these revelation involving the top echelons of AFP, what are the odds the recorded phone call to the AFP recorded call centre become lost or misplaced, Watergate revisited, some of AFP similar calibre of the late Richard Nixon.

  2. Could it be that Whybrow’s “recollection” of the said telephone conversation, and as described in his email, was different to the actual conversation and the Notes taken by Moller, immediately after the call. Just saying.

    • There is only one way Steve Whybrow could have known the “Moller Report” was not a legal document and that is if Scott Moller told him because it was Moller’s report and he is the only one who could say what it was for.

      Watch the video again and you will see Mark Tedeschi ask Moller did he have any other conversations about what the “Moller Report” was for and Moller says he didn’t until after the phone call with Whybrow.

  3. It’s a absolute disgrace to see the top high order in the LNP was able to interfere in the fair curse of justices and still trying to keep the legal system under their control this is high time to bring this problem out in the open and this try to preventing it to Court for their Action put at this time it’s look like the AFP and the LIB sticking together and let’s see how this injustice will be correct hopefully soon

  4. Well, I am left bewildered and totally dismayed. IMHO, it seems we have on this particular occasion, people in high and very responsible positions “playing games”. As a child / youth, I remember playing a game where, you were occasionally forbidden “to pass go, or collect $200, and go straight to gaol”. I think some specific rules should be re-implemented. IMHO, it wouldn’t be much of a loss if these rules were applied.

  5. Just as complicit as the PM at the time &his office Where is that report into who knew what & when & who said what & when The taxpayers paid for the report so proffer it up

Leave a Reply