Senior Australian Federal Police, with almost certain involvement from politicians, secretly considered applying for a suppression order to protect Bruce Lehrmann but they didn’t tell Bruce or his barrister. So, who was the suppression order going to protect?

In fact, Deputy Chief Police Officer Michael Chew who says in the below video that the AFP considered applying for a suppression order, not only did not consult Bruce Lehrmann or his then barrister John Korn about a possible suppression order, but Chew also did not consult any of the investigating police officers.

That would mean that Deputy Chief Police Officer Michael Chew only consulted officers above him which would be Commissioner Reece Kershaw and likely the politicians and public servants above Kershaw such as the Prime Minister’s Office and the then Minister for Home Affairs Peter Dutton / Karen Andrews and Scott Morrison who was also secretly the Minister for Home Affairs.

The below video is Deputy Chief Police Officer Michael Chew giving evidence at the Board of Inquiry into the Criminal Justice System or as I call it the Walter Sofronoff Police Corruption Inquiry on Friday the 26th of May 2023. (Michael Chew seems to have a new role now as: Deputy Chief Police Officer Response)

The first part of the video sets the background with Counsel Assisting Erin Longbottom KC questioning Michael Chew and the second part where Michael Chew is cross-examined by Shane Drumgold’s barrister Mark Tedeschi KC is where most of Michael Chew’s lies are exposed and where the secret suppression order is discussed.

A couple of key points worth noting before watching the video:

1. The police interviewed Brittany Higgins twice about the rape when it is only meant to be once for rape victims. Brittany Higgins said she felt intimidated (Click here to read more)
2. Detective Inspector Marcus Boorman tampered with a police document to try and make sure Bruce Lehrmann wasn’t charged. (Click here to read more)
3. Bruce Lehrmann’s barristers Steve Whybrow and John Korn gave evidence that Detective Superintendent Scott Moller tried to help them after Lehrmann was charged which Scott Moller denied. (Click here to read more)
4. One of the 2 AFP officers that interviewed Brittany Higgins, Senior Constable Trent Madders, was recently charged with  perjury, perverting the course of justice and concealing evidence in an unrelated matter but which occurred around the same time Bruce Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins at parliament house. (Click here to read more)

So key points to watch for in the video:

• The video starts off with Counsel Assisting Erin Longbottom KC questioning Michael Chew about how and why the brief of evidence and summons were served together and directly on defence (Bruce Lehrmann’s barrister) and police failed to follow the police’s checking process and in a situation where the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is meant to serve the brief of evidence on the defence.
• The police sent Brittany Higgins personal counselling notes, in breach of the law, to Bruce Lehrmann lawyers.
• Decision made by Michael Chew shows it was being managed at the highest levels.
• Brief of evidence and summons served at the same time which is unusual.
• Michael Chew tried to blame Covid but could not explain why except to say courts were operating on restricted times
• The process that should have been followed shows that the DPP were the ones which should be running the prosecution and they were the ones to decide if there was a need for a suppression order. So why were AFP sticking their noses in regarding a possible suppression orders. I suspect former Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s Department Secretary Phil Gaetjens would know.
• 14.30-minute mark of video – Mark Tedeschi KC cross-examination – Michael Chew says the AFP served the brief and summons together to start the progression of the matter to expedite it before the court at its first mention date – “that would then allow us to seek a suppression order to limit if not reduce the external commentary that was occurring”. All high-profile court cases have media reporting. So, who wanted to stop the “external commentary” and who would have benefited?
• Mark Tedeschi KC points out the AFP could have got the suppression order with just a summons being served. There was no need to serve brief of evidence. Michael Chew agrees and he would have already known that, so his lies are exposed.
• Only case where Michael Chew knows of counselling notes being served and recording of Brittany Higgins interview “Evidence in Chief Interview (EICI))” being served on the defence.

(Click anywhere on the above video to watch) (Click here to watch on YouTube)

Michael Chew’s witness statement – (Click here to read Michael Chew’s witness statement)

Michael Chew

Michael Chew discusses applying for suppression orders at page 58 of his witness statement as per below where Chew claims he discussed it with Scott Moller but Moller makes no mention of it in his witness statement:

and again at paragraph 73 as per below:

And again at paragraph 80 where he adds Covid as being a reason for the abnormal secretive process.

The problem for Michael Chew is there is no other evidence I am aware of that supports Chew’s claim that the AFP were considering applying for a suppression order as soon as Lehrmann was charged and that is the reason they had to rush the matter and serve Lehrmann’s barrister with the summons and brief of evidence at the same time.

It is possible the “suppression order” excuse is a big lie to cover-up the police deliberately and illegally serving Bruce Lehrmann’s barrister Brittany Higgins’ counselling notes and other material which could have potentially been a big help to Lehrmann. If that is the case Michael Chew perjured himself like no tomorrow at the ACT Inquiry. Either way it has political cover-up written all over it.

Detective Superintendent Scott Moller – (Click here to read Scott Moller’s witness statement)

Scott Moller who was overseeing the investigation and briefing Michael Chew directly on the matter said at paragraphs 208 to 2013 as per below. Moller does not mention the suppression orders anywhere in his witness statement which is very odd given Michael Chew’s evidence.

John Korn’s witness statement – Bruce Lehrmann’s first barrister for his parliament house rape charge

John Korn was Bruce Lehrmann’s barrister when he was charged in August 2021 for rape before Lehrmann changed to barrister Steve Whybrow. John Korn’s witness statement for the Walter Sofronoff Police Corruption Inquiry makes no mention of applying for a suppression order but does say on page 13 and 14 that Korn discussed with Scott Moller how to minimise the media attention. (Click here to read John Korn’s full witness statement)

Page 14:

Nowhere is there a suppression order mentioned by John Korn or by Detective Superintendent Scott Moller going by John Korn’s witness statement.

In fact, John Korn says in his witness statement above Scott Moller said to him “we will do everything we can to avoid a media circus, however once we file the proceedings in Court tomorrow afternoon, obviously we can’t control what happens from there”. That totally conflicts with the evidence that Commander Michael Chew gave in evidence in the witness box under oath at the ACT Police Corruption Inquiry that police were thinking about applying for a suppression order.

If Bruce Lehrmann wanted a suppression order it was up to his lawyer / barrister to apply to the court for one.

So, what was Michael Chew up to in considering applying for a suppression order to conceal Bruce Lehrmann’s name and maybe more? Who was Michael Chew trying to protect? It wasn’t Brittany Higgins because she had already outed herself as the rape victim. We all know! Scott Morrison and his government!

KCA publisher Shane Dowling is a witness

As it turns out I personally phoned the AFP’s ACT Media team on Friday the 6th of August 2021 and I wrote about it in an article titled “ACT Police media officer tried to help Bruce Lehrmann by stopping the media from naming him after a court attendance notice was issued” on the 11th of December 2022 which starts off:

On the day the ACT Police issued Bruce Lehrmann’s lawyers with a Court Attendance Notice (Summons), Friday the 6th of August 2021, I phoned the ACT Police media officer to discuss the issue. ACT Policing is the community policing arm of the Australian Federal Police (AFP).

The response from the media officer was strange, to say the least, although I never wrote about it at the time. But it is very relevant now given the allegations by the prosecutor in the rape trial of the police assisting Bruce Lehrmann’s defence and his call for an inquiry into police and political interference in the alleged rape case prosecution.

The media officer tried to pressure me not to name Bruce Lehrmann at least until the September hearing date even though the Police media officer admitted to me there was no legal basis to stop the media from naming him. All the old media fell into line until the next day. But more on that in a minute as it’s worth having a look at some of the background before I discuss my phone call with the ACT media officer further. (Click here to read the article)

There has to be a real chance that Scott Morrison and his government were thinking about putting the heat on the AFP to apply for a suppression order because the media attention and reporting was bad politically, and in August 2021 when this was all happening, the federal election was less than 12 months away in May 2022.

Or maybe Commander Michael Chew’s suppression order excuse was to cover-up the the police deliberately and illegally serving the material on Bruce Lehrmann’s barrister which I suspect would have also happened because of political pressure.

Whatever the truth is, there can be no doubt that Commander Michael Chew perjured himself in the witness stand. And when added together with the lies, deception and deceit of Detective Inspector Marcus Boorman, Detective Superintendent Scott Moller and Senior Constable Trent Madders it makes Chew the fourth corrupt AFP officer involved in the attempted cover-up of Brittany Higgins’ rape at parliament house.

Maybe Senator Linda Reynolds or Scott Morrison answer the question, about who wanted the suppression order, given both of them are due to give evidence at Senator Reynolds defamation case against Brittany Higgins which starts on the 2nd of August 2024. Although I expect Scotty will do a runner.

The Walter Sofronoff ACT Police Corruption Inquiry raises many more questions than it answers. The federal National Anti-Corruption Commission is meant to be investigating the police cover-up attempt of Bruce Lehrmann’s rape of Brittany Higgins so let’s see what they do. But based on it’s current performance the NACC will sweep it under the carpet and we know that the NACC was designed to sweep all serious corruption under the carpet.

Please use Facebook, “X”, email and the other buttons below and help promote this article.

Kangaroo Court of Australia is independent media and is 100% crowdfunded by readers like yourself so please support on the links below. Click on the PayPal button below to donate 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.

For the Fugitive Clothing t-shirt shop click here

Join the free email subscription below and you will be notified immediately I publish new articles which is normally twice a week.