Former Liberal staffer Bruce Lehrmann is set to learn the outcome of his appeal against a damaging defamation ruling involving Network 10 and journalist Lisa Wilkinson. The decision will be announced on Wednesday morning, following Lehrmann’s attempt to overturn a previous Federal Court ruling that upheld the network’s truth defence regarding allegations made by Brittany Higgins.
Higgins claimed during an interview on *The Project* in February 2021 that she was raped by a colleague at Parliament House after a night out on March 23, 2019. Lehrmann faced a significant defeat when Justice Michael Lee found that, on the balance of probabilities, he had indeed assaulted Higgins. Following this ruling, Lehrmann filed an appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court, asserting that he was not afforded procedural fairness during the initial proceedings.
Legal Arguments and Claims
During a two-day hearing earlier this year, Lehrmann’s solicitor, Zali Burrows, contended that Justice Lee’s findings diverged from the case presented by Network 10 and Higgins’ testimony. Burrows argued that the judge’s conclusion suggested a different narrative than the one her client faced. “Generally, we say Mr. Lehrmann could have conducted the case differently if the version that the judge had found against Mr. Lehrmann had been put to him at the beginning,” she stated.
Burrows highlighted that the allegations made against Lehrmann indicated a violent assault, while Justice Lee described the incident as a “soft rape.” She alleged that the judge “made a new case up,” suggesting a misalignment between the evidence presented and the court’s findings.
Key Findings from the Initial Ruling
In his judgment, Justice Lee noted that Lehrmann was likely aware that Higgins was intoxicated when they entered the office of their then-boss, Senator Linda Reynolds, following a night of drinking. He characterized Lehrmann’s intentions as “hell-bent” on having sexual relations with Higgins, stating that earlier in the evening, they had engaged in mutual kissing. Justice Lee remarked, “In his pursuit of gratification, he did not care one way or another whether Ms. Higgins understood or agreed to what was going on.”
The judge also referenced Lehrmann’s return to the office to retrieve his hat after a trial in the ACT Supreme Court was abandoned due to juror misconduct. The charges against him were later dropped out of concern for Higgins’ well-being. Lehrmann has consistently denied any sexual contact with Higgins, maintaining that once they entered the Defence Minister’s office, they separated and he did not see her again that night.
During the appeal hearing, Network 10’s barrister, Dr. Matt Collins KC, criticized the argument that Lehrmann might have presented different evidence had he known the judge’s findings. He deemed this assertion “astonishing,” given Lehrmann’s ongoing claims of innocence. “There were only two people in the room,” Collins pointed out, emphasizing the implausibility of Burrows’ argument unless consent were indeed in question.
As the court prepares to announce its judgment, the implications of this case continue to resonate within the legal community and the public. The outcome will not only impact Lehrmann’s personal and professional life but may also influence ongoing discussions about sexual assault allegations and media reporting in Australia.
