IT WAS a dressing down that seemed more likely to be warranted for misbehaving school children than adults at the centre of a high-stakes case in the sterile formality of Southport District Courtroom 13.
Mindful that emotions were running high in the extraordinary case, trial Judge Catherine Muir laid down the law to the warring parties before the trial began.
“I expect everyone in the courtroom to be treated with respect and there to be no carrying-on in this courtroom that I’m presiding over, and that I want to make clear that I’m not going to be allowing scandalous unfounded allegations to be thrown about in this courtroom,” the stern judge warned the parties ahead of the trial.
“I expect when witnesses are giving evidence or other people cross-examining, there will be no whispering at the bar table, no laughing, no carrying on, and everyone in the courtroom is treated with respect and dignity.”
It was not the last warning the judge had to issue as tempers flared and tears flowed during an astonishing four-week trial.
The court’s public gallery was packed, with supporters of the parents on one side and Mrs Brose and her entourage – including husband Peter – on the other.
Only Mrs Brose and Ms Proudlock were represented by lawyers.
To her detractors Tracey Brose was cold and calculating.
But in court, the principal rode a rollercoaster of emotions as she testified of the “hurt and humiliation” the parents’ comments had caused her.
Within minutes of taking the stand on the opening day, her professional demeanour crumbled as she broke down in tears, telling the court how she sobbed uncontrollably, binge-eating on packets of chocolate bullets and eventually having bariatric surgery after putting on more than 30kg while suffering depression following the Facebook attacks.
She considered taking her life and made inquiries to ensure her life insurance policy would not be voided by suicide but eventually found strength to carry on for the sake of her family, the principal testified.
“I was distressed, angry,” she said.
The accusation she did not support kids who “did not fit the norm” was particularly hurtful, she claimed.
“I have a disabled daughter and my whole career has been about trying to help kids who don’t fit the norm,” she said.
The principal said she spent $600,000 on the defamation case “to reinstate my reputation”, had remortgaged her house and borrowed money from her father and brother to fight the case.
“The reality is I borrowed from my dad, remortgage my house, borrowed from my little brother, all to try and reinstate my reputation. All it would take is an apology and an undertaking (not to repeat the defamation) and they haven’t been forthcoming,” Mrs Brose said in court.
In a tense exchange, a fired-up Ms Baluskas grilled Mrs Brose about why she chose to sue the parents she did.
“Did you choose to sue families that you could benefit from financially?” she asked.
“Yes,” Mrs Brose replied.
“Did you choose to sue these people because they owned property?” Ms Baluskas said.
Mrs Brose: “Yes.”
During cross-examination, Mrs Brose said she felt ‘vindicated’ after being reinstated.
“Yes, I felt vindicated,” Mrs Brose replied.
Ms Baluskas asked Mrs Brose if she lost “any income as a result of my publication”?
Mrs Brose answered, “No”.
“Would you agree that complaints and criticism is considered part of your job?,” Ms Baluskas asked Mrs Brose.
“Yes, if done properly,” Mrs Brose replied.
Referring to the home invasion, Mrs Baluskas told the court her husband was “pushed to the edge after finding out about the unlawful writ on my property”.
Ms Baluskas suggested that “a reasonable person would assume the post had been removed or deleted” and that Mrs Brose had commenced legal action against them “with malicious intent”.
“No – if you had apologised and given an undertaking to refrain from making further comments, we wouldn’t be here,” Mrs Brose said.
“I did apologise, Mrs Brose,” Ms Baluskas snapped back.
A fired-up Ms Baluskas asked Mrs Brose if she recalled calling her son a sexual predator during a meeting in the principal’s office in February 2014.
“No,” Mrs Brose replied.
“Bullshit,” exclaimed Mrs Baluskas.
It prompted one of several stern rebukes from Judge Muir, who adjourned the court before telling Ms Baluskas to take a “deep breath”.
“I will not have that language in my courtroom,” the judge scolded.
Mrs Brose’s barrister, Holly Blattman, quizzed the principal about disciplinary action she had taken against students including the Baluskas’ 12-year-old son, who was thrown out after allegedly telling a five-year-old boy on the school bus to show him his penis.
Mrs Brose vehemently denied repeated accusations from the Baluskases that she had labelled their son a “sexual predator”.
It was Ms Baluskas who became emotional as she quizzed Mrs Brose over the expulsion, breaking down while describing how her boy tried to hang himself in a backyard tree.
The bus incident was just “funny talk” and her son had apologised but was summarily expelled, Ms Baluskas said.
“She (Brose) jumped to conclusions that our son was a sexual predator before she even did any investigation,’’ she told the court.
The boy was sent to a private college, where he struggled to fit in.
Ominously, nooses were found in his wardrobe and “in the tree he used to climb up”.
“My husband had to go and cut the branches off the tree so he couldn’t climb the tree,” a distraught Ms Baluskas told the court.
She said her focus had been to clear her son’s name: “I did everything I could in my power to help that little boy.”
The court heard Mrs Brose had also suspended Kerri Ervin’s niece, who was involved in a fist fight in class.
Mrs Brose said she counselled the student about “contraceptives, STDs and healthy relationships” but denied claims she had called the girl a “slut”.
NEXT UP: THREE SECRET LETTERS
OTHER CHAPTERS IN THE SERIES:
- CHAPTER ONE: LIVES DESTROYED BY JUST 43 WORDS
- CHAPTER TWO: PRINCIPAL FROM HELL, OR HELL OF A PRINCIPAL?
- CHAPTER THREE: THE FATEFUL EIGHT
- CHAPTER FOUR: MY ENTIRE FUTURE EXPLODED
- CHAPTER FIVE: TELL YOUR CLIENT TO SHOVE HER OFFER UP HER ARSE
- CHAPTER SIX: TEMPERS FLARE, TEARS FLOW
‘Life-threatening flooding’ and 600mm a day possible: BOM
Townsville residents in low-lying suburbs are being urged to evacuate as authorities warn between 300-600mm a day is forecast into next week. PLUS new flood warnings issued >>
Locals warned of ‘life-threatening flooding’, as NQ braces for cyclonic rain totals
Townsville residents are being warned to brace for possible flooding up to the second storeys of buildings, as Premier David Crisafulli sends a powerful message to North Queensland amid warnings of cyclonic rainfall levels.