Monash University Masking Sexual Harassment by Forging Evidence

Abstract

Monash University masking sexual harassment by fabricating evidence in its internal grievance process, and engaging in direct racial discrimination. Australian Court masking Monash perjury by brushing off the incident and thus engaging in supporting Monash’s racial discrimination. The victim Qizhi Chen suing Australian Court to the United Nations.

Privilege and Power in Australian Universities Masks Sexual Harassment Problem

Introduction

During Chen’s employment George Simon made sexual advances towards her, showing a recurring pattern of behaviour over a sustained period of time. Among numerous incidents are, but not limited to, three physical-touches by Simon on Chen at her breast, buttocks and leg.

The dispute central to the litigation of Qizhi Chen vs Monash University is that Monash University viewed that the matter between Qizhi Chen and her then supervision Simon was misunderstanding due to English being her second language. This is despite the fact that Chen has been lecturing in English since 2008, her lecturing was ranked the 8th out of 220 courses in Engineering Faculty at Monash University, publishing work intensively in English with prestigious publishers and top international journals (Link 1 and Link 2), and that Chen could not possibly misunderstand the physical touch of George Simon at her breast, buttocks and leg due to English being her second language. 

Harmer’s lawyers (Chen’s then legal advisor) have identified that the above View is racial discriminatory, stating that “It is of note that Ms Chen has been studying or working in English speaking countries and regions since 1996. She has worked and published in English at Imperial College London, Monash University and elsewhere, including being employed as a university lecturer. Ms Chen is of Chinese descent. Monash University has unfairly used Ms Chen’s ethnic origin (and language associated with that origin) to form the view that she misunderstood Mr Simon’s sexual advances towards her. This contributed to Monash University’s conclusion that a formal investigation into Ms Chen’s Complaint should not be pursued. In the circumstances, Monash University has engaged in unlawful direct race discrimination, in breach of s9 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).”

Hence, Monash University was in desperate need of evidence. For the evidence purpose, the harasser George Simon, Monash University HR and Monash hired so-called ‘independent’ investigator Ms Norena Kavanagh jointly engaged in a criminal misdeed: forging evidence.

01.

In a relatively small incident George Simon (Simon) asked Qizhi Chen (Chen) to do his tie. Chen declined. In response, Simon admitted that he asked Chen about his tie, but tampering evidence with a claim that “I may have asked her if it was skewed”, which attempted to mislead people to believe that he might just have wanted to adjust his tie and that Chen had misunderstood him due to English being her second language (A95=CB361,p1398). 

“Adjust” has thus became a keyword in Simon’s claim.

​

​02.

In order to establish Simon’s claim “adjust tie”, Monash hired investigator, Ms Norena Kavanagh (Kavanagh), made a critically false recording in her handwritten, contemporaneous note during her investigation. Details are:

(1)       On 22 February 20##, Kavanagh interviewed Chen. During the interview, Chen and Kavanagh had the following conversations in relation to the tie incident (R154, No351-352):

·     Kavanagh: Yes, a tie. You said No?

·     Chen: Yes, I said no, but said “You look great” because that is the way I reject. I didn’t make it. “Why you worry about your tie? You look great”.

Video 1

Then Kavanagh strategically and purposefully interrupted Chen’s depicting, diverting the conversation to a trivial matter. 

(2)       About 10 minutes later, Kavanagh again strategically and purposefully returned to the tie issue, and beginning her misdeed: falsely recording Chen’s testimony. While the actual conversation was (R154, No.419-420):

·     Kavanagh: You look that good that’s fine. No need to make it

·     Chen: Yes, I said look good or look great something like that. Because I didn’t make it –the tie

·     Kavanagh: You dont need to.

Video 2 

Kavanagh was writing down in her notebook in the form of Chen’s words that

QC said ‘you look good’; no need to adjust tie.

(3)       In Kavanagh’s final report (which Monash rejected to provide to Chen at the end of the grievance procedure, despite Monash policy advises the opposite), she made the following note in the column of “Details provided by Dr Chen in writing and at interview held on 22 February 20##” (R10=CB391, p1732, R153=CB375, No352):

At interview Dr Chen stated:

·     QC said ‘you look good’, no need to adjust tie.

(4)       On 21 February 20## before interviewing Chen, Simon claimed with kavanaugh that “I may have asked her if it was skewed” (A95=CB361, p1398). This suggests that Kavanagh knowingly and wilfully made the false note when interviewing Chen such that her report could be used as evidence to support Simon’s claim, and ultimately to support Monash University’s conclusion of “misunderstanding due to English being Chen’s second language”.

03.

During the court evidence hearing, Monash University claimed that Chen said “no need to adjust it”. The conspiracy was further enhanced by the skilfully-prepared cross examination conducted by Mr Justine Bourke, a top-barrister hired by Monash University. At T187-190:

·       Bourke (barrister): He asked whether it was un-straight…

·       Chen: No.

·       Bourke: –Let me [finish my question], and you said you look good.

·       Chen: That’s right. Correct.

·       Bourke: And you said “No need to adjust tie?” 

·       Chen: No, I didn’t say that, I said “You don’t worry about your tie.”

·       Bourke: I suggest you said “No need to adjust it”.

·       Chen: No. I didn’t say this.

·       Bourke: Right.

·       Chen: I said “You don’t worry about your tie.” This is a polite decline.

Video 3

NOTE: Mr Bourke, purposefully and skilfully combined his two questions, which would be addressed with completely opposite answers “no” or“yes” respectively, into one “He asked whether it was un-straight, and you said you look good“, which was designed to lead the victim to give one answer “yes” to the two parts collectively, so that he would use “yes” as the answer to the first part of his question.

Then Mr Bourke directed Chen to read the report of Kavanagh, at page 1732: 

At interview Dr Chen stated:

·               QC said ‘you look good’; no need to adjust tie.

Facing the above note, Chen firmly stated without any hesitation that “I never said this, and if I’d said this, that would be ridiculous.” This is the moment Chen realised that her recording of the investigation formed critical evidence.

04. 

After Chen’s tape (Exhibit R154) was provided to and admitted by the Court, Kavanagh claimed that she added it as her own comment. This is not an honest defence and is absolutely unacceptable, because 

(1)        Being an investigator, Kavanagh’s duty is to write down what Chen, the interviewee, responded to her questions. The investigator’s own comments were irrelevant to the investigation recording.

(2)        This so-called ‘comment’ was the only one in the lengthy table (39 pages) of interviewees’ claims “in writing and at interview“. There was no another comment if she needed to record her own comments.

(3)        It does not make any sense that an investigator makes notes of herself comments, which is later used as a tool in cross examination of Chen (T1017.15-17). The cross-examination conducted by Monash University’s senior counsel about the tie incident shows that he was well instructed in advance by his clients on how to use Kavanagh’s note “no need to adjust tie” to evidence Simon’s claim “skewed”.

(4)        Kavanagh’s own comment at interview was “No need to make it“, neither Kavanagh nor Chen ever used the word “adjust” throughout the interview.

05.

Any reasonable person would anticipate that 

(1)        If the victim had not recorded the investigation interview, Kavanagh’s contemporaneous, handwritten note “QC said you look good; no need to adjust tie.” would have been taken as the only and most convincing evidence to underpin the harasser’s claim “skewed“, even in the form of the victim’s own confess.

(2)        If the harasser’s claim had been ‘proved’, Monash University’s conclusion of “misunderstanding due to English being Chen’s second language” would have been established.

(3)        If Monash University’s conclusion had been underpinned by evidence, Monash University would have succeeded in masking sexual harassment, in a manner of racial discrimination.

(4)        If the victim had not recorded the investigation, those malicious rumours that Monash University has been using to assault victims, such as a mental-disordered, too sensitive, confused, weak memory, etc. would all be succeeded. But this time they failed. 

What a big little lie. Big, Huge!

06.

Monash University meticulously planned and conducted the Big Little Lie almost flawlessly, including 

(1)        Hiring a so-called ‘independent’, external investigator, so that Monash University could later claim that its investigation process is fair.

(2)        The investigator Kavanagh strategically and purposefully touched the tie issue discontinuously, and sneakily inserting a similar sentence “no need to make it” into the conversation to resemble the false note “no need to adjust it“.

(3)        Replacing just one word ‘make‘ with ‘adjust‘, in the form of the victim’s saying at interview.

(4)        Time manoeuvre. The investigation interview was conducted on 22 Feb 20##, and the court trial was held  two years leter, the two years delay would significantly have blurred the victim’s memory about the investigation interview and thus assisted Monash University to succeed with its falsified recording easily and conveniently. 

The ulterior motive of time manoeuvre was revealed by the fact that during Monash internal investigation, Monad HR director Andrew Picouleau said to the effect “It would be difficult for Chen to remember what was said accurately.” (R10=CB391, p1717).

(5)        The highly skilful cross examination conducted by Monash hired Senior Counsel, a top barrister of Australia, almost succeeded with trapping Chen to inadvertently “admit” the Harasser’s claim.

But, that “perfect, flawless” plot was failed by just one element: the Victim’s recording of the investigation interview –a legal advice from an Australian Lawyer who knows the darkness of Monash University. “They treated victims very badly.”

Truth speaks loudly.

07.

After the scandalous revelation of Monash University’s false evidence, Judge Tracey of the Federal Court of Australia still produced the same conclusion as Monash University’s. He did so by dropping off the incident and the entire evidence –Chen’s audio recording. 

08.

Not only that, in order to conveniently reach Monash University’s discriminating view of “misunderstanding due to second language” , Judge Tracey, during the hearing proceeding , consciously and purposefully made a number of non-genuine misunderstandings of Chen’s spoken English when she provided simple page numbers. This is despite the fact that 

(1)            the numbers in Chen’s spoken English were transcribed with no errors, as shown in the following table;

(2)            the Respondents’ senior counsel had no difficulties in accurately understanding the numbers in Chen’s spoken English;

for instance, at T911:31-37:

CHEN: 465.

TRACEY: 435? 

Monash Counsel: 465, your Honour.

(3)            The primary judge showed mishearing at a markedly high frequency after, and ONLY after the Note was proved to be false and as a result, the View of Monash could hardly be established; before that he had showed no difficulties in understanding Chen’s spoken English.  

T703;19-25	CHEN:   Tab number 68. TRACEY:   58? CHEN:   Six – six eight.
T706:22-29	CHEN:   And the last one on the list is court book tab 453. TRACEY:   253?
T707:39-47	CHEN:   Tab 22, double 2.  TRACEY:   222?
T710:5-20	CHEN:  And the court book 38 (…) TRACEY:   Tab 58 is it? CHEN:   No, 38.
T715:36-40	CHEN:   So would you like to look at court book tab 22? TRACEY:   27?
T722:34-41	CHEN:   let’s go to book 6, tab 361. TRACEY:   3-5-5.
T734:1-5	CHEN:   Sorry.  361.  TRACEY:   This is tab 351? CHEN:   361.
T745:25-32	CHEN:   then let’s go ….. court book 131.  TRACEY:   139?
T772:18-28	CHEN:   1416. TRACEY:   13?
T790:36-38	CHEN:   So let’s go to court, maybe, 79. TRACEY:   Tab 71?  In volume 1?
T819:40-42	CHEN:   Not 355. TRACEY:   Did you say 345?
T838:21-34	CHEN:   Court book 361 ‑ ‑ ‑ TRACEY:   51?
T852:30-37	CHEN: Can we go to court book 106. TRACEY:   103?
T856:30-34	CHEN:  In the bundle of – yes, 16.  Yes, 16. TRACEY:   15, which is the ‑ ‑ ‑
T857:32-39	CHEN: it’s court book 257.  TRACEY:   253?
T865:10-24 Audio:   Tracey 421	CHEN:   421, your Honour. TRACEY:   221. CHEN:   4, your Honour;  4. TRACEY:   241? CHEN:   Yes – 4 ‑ ‑ ‑ MR BOURKE:   421.
T911:31-37 Audio:   Tracey 465	CHEN:   465. TRACEY:   435? CHEN:   Six, six, six.  One, two, three, four, five, six.  Six.  MR BOURKE:   465, your Honour.
T953:31-37	CHEN:   17 – first of all, 1716 ….. 1716. TRACEY:   1616?
T967:8-12	CHEN: Court book 346. TRACEY:   342?

In the above circumstance, the Federal Court of Australia has engaged in direct racial discrimination, violating Article 2 of The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) by engaging in act or practice of racial discrimination and effectively undertaking “defend and support racial discrimination by any persons or organisations” which is Monash University in Qizhi Chen’s case. This is the first and foremost ground on which Chen has been petitioning to the United Nations against the Australian Government via the channel of Individual Complaint. 

09.

That cheaters should not be allowed to prosper has long been central to the moral fabric of our society and one of the underpinnings of our legal system. However, the Australian Federal Court judged in favour of Monash University after its perpetrators committed nearly 100 deceitful conducts and undeniably false claims in mishandling this matter and after the victim made no deceits. Chen’s case is an Australian version of “To Kill a Mockingbird”, involving gender injustice, racial prejudice and destruction of innocent.

10.

Not only did Monash University forge this wholly false evidence to the court and lied one after another throughout the trial, the University further sought to destroy the name and character of the victim by planting and fostering rumours that the victim was mental-discorded and a trouble-maker. 

READ MORE:

Monash University Masking Sexual Harassment by Forging Evidence 中文版

An Australian ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’

Lady, it’s your fault to take your career seriously

Session 01 Monash University Orchestrating Institutional Sexual Harassment

E01 Monash University Deputy Dean George Simon Orchestrating Institutional Sexual Harassment

E02 George Simon Entrapping Victim for Sex -Hoisting by His Own Petard

Session 02 Monash University Systemic Discrimination/Victimization

E01 Associate Dean Murray Rudman undervaluing Chen’s performance by miscalculating 1,2,3,4,5 中文版

E02 Dean Tam Sridhar Faking up promotion standards in Chen’s promotion case 中文版

E03 Harasser George Simon “Quid Pro Quo” Sexual Harassment 中文版

E04 Associate Dean Chris Davies blocking Chen’s recruitment of research students  by misusing policy 中文版

E05 Nick Birbilis sabotaging Chen’s textbook publication 中文版

E06 Provost Adam Shoemaker denying promotion by faking up evidence

E07 Provost Edwina Cornish Who has no power, but has the gut to terminate Chen’s employment, which eventually fired herself from the provost job at Monash University

Session 03 Monash University Massive Coverup Using Extreme Measures

Shocking, Ugly Media Propaganda: Comply with Harassers’ Request

E01 Perjury: Monash University Masking Sexual Harassment by Forging Evidence 中文版

E02 Monash University’s Public Cyber-Harassment, as Low as It Gets

E03 Frame: Plot of Making-A-Misconduct 中文版

E04 Foul Play of Monash University: Food-Poisoning Victim 中文版, 中文版续

E05 Locating, Following and Death-Threatening Victim 中文版

E06 Australian Hired Agents Assaulting Chen at Her Place in Beijing China 中文版

E07 Plot of Assassination without a Trace (I) 中文版

E08 Plot of Assassination without a Trace (II) 中文版