Login
Partner wrongly accused of ‘gaslighting’ woman about Rio Tinto rape
A former employee of a mining company that operated under the Rio Tinto umbrella accused a partner from a major firm of “gaslighting” her when she came forward to report a rape at one of its sites.
Naomi Neilson
A Hall & Wilcox partner was accused of “side-stepping” a complaint of a rape at one of Rio Tinto’s mining sites and “gaslighting” the former employee of WorkPac, who was assigned to Pilbara Iron by WorkPac, who reached out to report it, according to a judgment in the Federal Circuit and Family Court (FCFCOA).
In a decision earlier this month, Judge Antoni Lucev dismissed the allegations against the partner and stressed she had been “quite correct” in communications with Chapple about the rape claim.
“It follows that no fair-minded informed member of the public might, or would, have concluded that the proper administration of justice requires that [the partner] be stood aside,” Judge Lucev said.
In June 2023, Rio Tinto issued a brief to suppliers in Western Australia that advised of a sexual assault at one of its sites.
A person unknown to the proceedings then sent Chapple an “altered” version of this notice that referred to another rape, and it was this that prompted Chapple to first email the partner with the claim.
The partner explained Rio Tinto did not know of another case of sexual assault and, after learning where the claim came from, assured Chappel “quite properly” that Rio Tinto “was unaware of what was in fact a single incident of sexual assault at [the mining site]”.
Chapple was also provided with options to send information if she wished and the contact for an employee assistance program.
In her affidavit, Chapple claimed the alleged “denial of a rape” resulted in “significant impacts” to her mental health and finances, particularly given it related to “the same types of issues as to that which caused her departure from Rio Tinto and Workpac”.
“There was, in the circumstances, no false or misleading statement by [the partner]; and even if, contrary to this conclusion, there was a false or misleading statement, it could not on the present facts be said to have been made ‘knowingly’,” Judge Lucev said.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
