UPDATE: In a high-stakes appeal hearing unfolding right now, Bruce Lehrmann is contesting a damaging defamation ruling against him in the Federal Court. The hearing began on October 25, 2023, with Lehrmann’s solicitor, Zali Burrows, acknowledging her lack of resources compared to the opposing legal team.
Lehrmann is appealing a previous decision that dismissed his defamation suit against Network 10 and journalist Lisa Wilkinson following a February 2021 interview where Brittany Higgins alleged she was raped by a colleague in Parliament House in 2019. This appeal is critical as it could redefine the outcomes of high-profile defamation cases in Australia.
During the court proceedings, Burrows argued that Lehrmann was denied “procedural fairness” and that Justice Michael Lee had made findings that diverged from evidence presented during the trial. Justice Lee ruled against Lehrmann in April, stating that he had previously faced a mistrial due to juror misconduct in his sexual assault case.
“Having escaped the lions’ den, Mr. Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat,” Justice Lee remarked in his judgment.
Lehrmann, who was ordered to pay $2 million in legal costs, is now appealing on four grounds. However, questions arose during the hearing regarding Burrows’ effectiveness in presenting his case without a senior barrister, highlighting the challenges he faces in this legal battle.
Burrows, who joined Lehrmann’s team post-trial, stated, “I just want to apologise to Your Honours on behalf of my client that you don’t have senior counsel before you right now.” The court was informed that Lehrmann could not afford Guy Reynolds SC, a noted barrister, further complicating his appeal.
As the hearing progressed, the judges expressed confusion at Burrows’ arguments, prompting Justice Michael Wigney to challenge her assertions repeatedly. “How could he have conducted his case differently?” he asked, emphasizing the need for clarity in her claims.
On the second day of the hearing, Burrows contended that Justice Lee “made a new case up,” leading to further scrutiny from the panel of justices. Burrows faced intense questioning regarding her interpretation of the case’s findings, particularly about the nature of the alleged assault.
Lehrmann’s situation remains precarious as he seeks to overturn the ruling that has already cost him dearly. After the initial trial, he was left with a $2 million bill and faced significant public scrutiny. The case has stirred intense media interest, focusing on issues of consent and the legal definitions surrounding sexual assault.
Justice Wendy Abraham permitted Lehrmann to continue his appeal without needing a $200,000 surety, citing his financial struggles as an unemployed student. As the court deliberates, the implications of this appeal extend beyond Lehrmann, potentially affecting how similar cases are handled in the future.
Throughout this urgent hearing, Lehrmann’s emotional state has been a focal point. Burrows highlighted the lack of concern for him from the media outside the court, stating, “When Mr. Lehrmann leaves the court today, I’m pretty sure no one will ask if he is OK.” This comment underscores the broader human impact of the case as it draws public attention and debate.
The justices will deliver their judgment at a later date, leaving Lehrmann and those following the case in suspense over the future of this contentious legal battle. The outcome could redefine not only Lehrmann’s life but also the legal landscape surrounding defamation and sexual assault allegations in Australia.
