Sharon Whitehead v. Michael Moon. A Cautionary Tale

johnboy 6 December 2013 37

The Supreme Court via Master Harper has delivered the saddest judgment it’s ever been my displeasure to encounter.

It’s a tale of public service sexual misadventure. There’s career death, attempted suicide, and in the end Michael Moon is up for a life crippling $668,856 (plus costs to come).

Considering his fragile accuser was unwilling or unable to make a criminal charge against him the lesson appears to be to take wrongdoers to the civil courts.

This is a profoundly sad case. And it appears certain there has been bad behaviour. I leave it to readers to make their own judgments.

I will, however, ask commenters to be extremely guarded in their remarks.

Regardless of the rights or wrongs, amorous men are well advised to be very cautious as a result of this when approaching vulnerable women.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
37 Responses to Sharon Whitehead v. Michael Moon. A Cautionary Tale
Filter
Order
Anna Key Anna Key 4:20 pm 31 Dec 13

On different note, does the ACT court system really move this slowly? The incident happened in 2007, proceedings commenced in Dec 2008, a revised statement of claims lodged in July 2010, hearings were held in June and Sept 2011 and a judgement delivered in Dec 2013.

I admit I don’t know the workings of the legal system, but even taking into account a few adjournments/postponements, surely it shouldn’t take 5 years from a commencement of proceedings to date of judgement.

Tim33 Tim33 11:06 am 31 Dec 13

Wow, it is a sad outcome indeed. So she left the door open even, they went to adult stores together and she kept leaning over to kiss him? Well now his life is ruined, the only thing is – as an EL2 he definitely shouldn’t have been going there. I think this meme applies here:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=562152873840198&set=a.392418540813633.89052.102001393188684&type=1&theater

maxblues maxblues 10:15 am 31 Dec 13

I hadn’t heard of the very phenomena.

Lookout Smithers Lookout Smithers 1:41 am 31 Dec 13

Its still not an offence to drive your heard of sheep over the Sydney harbour bridge. There is many ludicrous phenomena to be found in the legal system. The above doesn’t really stand out as a good example though. Sad? Perhaps. A common avenue taken after criminal proceedings don’t stick? Very.

maxblues maxblues 12:12 pm 10 Dec 13

afunkychicken said :

Was I the only one astounded at how much of the drinking and sexual activity was taking place during work hours or on work premesis? Where was the accountability during the lead up to these events?

That’s the only reason I go to work.

afunkychicken afunkychicken 11:31 am 10 Dec 13

Was I the only one astounded at how much of the drinking and sexual activity was taking place during work hours or on work premesis? Where was the accountability during the lead up to these events?

dpm dpm 6:51 pm 09 Dec 13

johnboy said :

…..

But there are very important issues that need to be digested.

Just wondering, what are the ‘very important issues’??

screaming banshee screaming banshee 6:27 am 09 Dec 13

It certainly comes off that the guy is an arsehole, and I dare say that had the verdict gone the other way she would probably try to top herself again, but based upon my reading in full of the judgement I don’t see this as a fair outcome. In regards to the quality of evidence, I can see where details would be left out by the defendant like the blood on the workcover statement. The plaintiff has run through the events over and over again in her head and appeared to be beating herself up over the way she acted, rather than what actually happened.

What shocks me about this though is the nonsense that goes on in contracting circles, for a start why on earth should he govt be covering the cost of an industry conference for contractors…it’s up to them to maintain their skills and be across industry developments.

CraigT CraigT 6:24 am 09 Dec 13

Masquara said :

maxblues said :

Whitehead vs Moon…a pimple vs a bare arse?

It’s very clear from the judgement that there’s a very vulnerable individual involved here, so you should perhaps be taking that into account. From where you or I sit, this joke could be funny. But someone in the middle of the trauma of being discussed online in this horrible context could take it very badly.

Yeah, somebody so vulnerable she’d managed to be promoted to EL, then milked the whole stress-leave malarkey to the max.

Together with her psycho supervisor, the pair of them demonstrate quite clearly that the public service is a sheltered workshop for people who could never operate succesfully in the real world.

banco banco 1:44 am 09 Dec 13

Given his legal defence will likely have run into 6 figures and he’ll probably declare bankruptcy I doubt she’ll see the $600,000.

Pork Hunt Pork Hunt 11:01 pm 08 Dec 13

Masquara said :

maxblues said :

Masquara said :

maxblues said :

Whitehead vs Moon…a pimple vs a bare arse?

It’s very clear from the judgement that there’s a very vulnerable individual involved here, so you should perhaps be taking that into account. From where you or I sit, this joke could be funny. But someone in the middle of the trauma of being discussed online in this horrible context could take it very badly.

$600,000 should ease the joke I am sure.

The $600,000 is compensation for losses, not any kind of bonus.

I wish someone gave me $600,000 for being that gullible…

Deborah Deborah 6:43 pm 08 Dec 13

I think it’s sad that this woman is being violated all over again with her private details being discussed in a public forum. I hope her solicitor made her aware that the judgement would be made public.

Masquara Masquara 3:54 pm 08 Dec 13

maxblues said :

Masquara said :

maxblues said :

Whitehead vs Moon…a pimple vs a bare arse?

It’s very clear from the judgement that there’s a very vulnerable individual involved here, so you should perhaps be taking that into account. From where you or I sit, this joke could be funny. But someone in the middle of the trauma of being discussed online in this horrible context could take it very badly.

$600,000 should ease the joke I am sure.

The $600,000 is compensation for losses, not any kind of bonus.

maxblues maxblues 3:28 pm 08 Dec 13

Masquara said :

maxblues said :

Whitehead vs Moon…a pimple vs a bare arse?

It’s very clear from the judgement that there’s a very vulnerable individual involved here, so you should perhaps be taking that into account. From where you or I sit, this joke could be funny. But someone in the middle of the trauma of being discussed online in this horrible context could take it very badly.

$600,000 should ease the joke I am sure.

Masquara Masquara 3:14 pm 08 Dec 13

maxblues said :

Whitehead vs Moon…a pimple vs a bare arse?

It’s very clear from the judgement that there’s a very vulnerable individual involved here, so you should perhaps be taking that into account. From where you or I sit, this joke could be funny. But someone in the middle of the trauma of being discussed online in this horrible context could take it very badly.

maxblues maxblues 1:21 pm 08 Dec 13

Whitehead vs Moon…a pimple vs a bare arse?

CraigT CraigT 8:01 am 08 Dec 13

Henry82 said :

CraigT said :

I’ve never heard of sharing a room on a work trip. What a dodgy setup.

I don’t really see the issue to be honest. One would expect two mature adults to be…mature.

Maybe other rooms were sold out?

I can’t think of anybody I work with that I would want to share a room with. It’s bad enough having to work with them, imagine having to see them in the jim-jams as well. EURGHGH!

m00nee m00nee 10:55 pm 07 Dec 13

Henry82 said :

CraigT said :

I’ve never heard of sharing a room on a work trip. What a dodgy setup.

I don’t really see the issue to be honest. One would expect two mature adults to be…mature.

Maybe other rooms were sold out?

Sharing a suite or serviced apartment is quite common, I’ve done it numerous times. All government employees get a accommodation allowance when they travel. By combining allowances you can either save the department money, or you can upgrade from a (in some instances) pretty crappy hotel to something far more luxurious.

Having said that it appears that in this instance when it came to the accommodation, pleasure came before business.

drfelonious drfelonious 9:25 pm 07 Dec 13

Hmmmm – I think this case raises some very interesting legal questions, among them:

Was the test in Briginshaw v Briginshaw correctly applied here, and

Does the test only require the court to determine whether or not an act occurred (i.e. the plaintiff did not consent) or is does the test require contemplation of some form of objective test about whether or not the plaintiff consented?

Henry82 Henry82 4:05 pm 07 Dec 13

CraigT said :

I’ve never heard of sharing a room on a work trip. What a dodgy setup.

I don’t really see the issue to be honest. One would expect two mature adults to be…mature.

Maybe other rooms were sold out?

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

 Top
Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site