News location:

Canberra Today 13°/16° | Friday, May 3, 2024 | Digital Edition | Crossword & Sudoku

Liar, rapist: Ten ‘vindicated’ in Lehrmann verdict

Bruce Lehrmann told deliberate lies, a Federal Court judge has said. (Bianca De Marchi/AAP PHOTOS)

By Miklos Bolza and Duncan Murray in Sydney

Bruce Lehrmann hoped for vindication for his tarnished reputation, but instead he suffered courtroom devastation after a judge found he raped Brittany Higgins during an infamous night at Parliament House.

After months poring over what happened in a senator’s office in March 2019 – as well as in the lead-up and devastating aftermath – Justice Michael Lee on Monday handed down his judgment in Lehrmann’s defamation case against Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson.

“Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins,” he told the Federal Court as he ruled in favour of Ten.

While there was no evidence Lehrmann knew that Ms Higgins did not consent to the sexual activity, he was recklessly indifferent to her rights, the judge said.

The two staffers were seen kissing and touching while out for after-work drinks on a routine Friday evening in Canberra.

Later, they hopped in an Uber and returned to parliament, where Justice Lee said they ended up on a couch in the office of their then-boss, Senator Linda Reynolds.

“Having successfully brought Ms Higgins back to a secluded place, Mr Lehrmann was hell-bent on having sex,” the judge told a packed courtroom.

The former Liberal staffer sat with his head bowed while listening to the judge’s findings after repeatedly denying anything sexual took place that night.

“He was a 23-year-old male cheating on his girlfriend, having just ‘hooked up’ with a woman he found sexually attractive,” Justice Lee said.

“Human experience suggests what he then wanted to happen is not exactly shrouded in mystery.”

While Justice Lee said he could not find that Ms Higgins told Lehrmann no “on a loop” during the alleged assault, she was passive “like a log”.

The 28-year-old sued Ten and Wilkinson for defamation over a February 2021 report on The Project airing Ms Higgins’ claims.

If the 28-year-old had won his defamation case, he would only have been entitled to a “very modest” amount of $20,000 in damages given the limited nature of any hurt from Ten’s reporting, Justice Lee said.

A Logies speech by Wilkinson over The Project segment derailed criminal proceedings against Lehrmann and denied him the right to a fair trial, but it also gave his legal team more time to attack Ms Higgins’ allegations.

The criminal trial against Lehrmann was abandoned in 2022 with no findings made against him.

“Having escaped the lions’ den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat,” Justice Lee said.

He described Lehrmann and Ms Higgins as “unreliable historians” when recounting what occurred on that fateful night.

But Justice Lee singled out Lehrmann for telling “deliberate lies”, adding that he had no compunction from departing from the truth if he thought it was expedient.

The judge said Ms Higgins had also been loose with the truth in allegations made to Ten in 2021 that members of the then-coalition government had sought to silence her in reporting the alleged rape.

“The cover-up allegation was objectively short on facts but long on speculation,” he said.

But Justice Lee found that any incorrect statements made to the police in 2019 were not inconsistent with remarks being made by a genuine victim of sexual assault.

He also slammed Ten and Wilkinson for their conduct over The Project item, describing it as falling short of the standard of reasonableness.

The broadcaster had chased the allegation of a government cover-up which was “without reasonable foundation in verifiable fact”, Justice Lee said.

“The allegation of rape was the minor theme (of the broadcast) and the allegation of cover-up was the major motif,” he said.

Speaking outside court, Wilkinson acknowledged the victory, saying the judge found she published a “true report” about the events in Parliament House.

“I sincerely hope that this judgment gives strength to women around the country,” she said.

Ten’s solicitor Justin Quill called the result an “unmitigated disaster” for Lehrmann.

“For Channel Ten, it’s vindication,” he said.

“Vindication in its belief and support of Brittany Higgins.”

Lehrmann did not say anything as he pushed through a scrum of waiting reporters.

The case will soon come back before the courts to discuss the issue of legal costs.

Ten slammed as ‘grossly improper’ despite Lehrmann win

Who can be trusted?

In a world of spin and confusion, there’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in Canberra.

If you trust our work online and want to enforce the power of independent voices, I invite you to make a small contribution.

Every dollar of support is invested back into our journalism to help keep citynews.com.au strong and free.

Become a supporter

Thank you,

Ian Meikle, editor

Share this

2 Responses to Liar, rapist: Ten ‘vindicated’ in Lehrmann verdict

cbrapsycho says: 15 April 2024 at 4:30 pm

At last! Brilliant and very clear critical analysis of the facts and the logic behind the judgement by Justice Lee.

Almost everyone involved in this case was exposed for some sort of failure or wrong-doing, mostly the witnesses (Lehrmann, Higgins & Auerbach) but also including the Channel 10’s lawyer for her advice to Wilkinson on her speech and her failure to observe her responsibility to the justice system. He stated Wilkinson should have known better due to her long experience as a journalist but did at least seek legal advice and acted upon it. Fiona Brown was cleared of the many accusations made against her.

Channel 7 appears to be the supporter of the most unpleasant individuals , both employees and those accused of criminal abuse of others (eg Bruce Lehrmann & Ben Roberts-Smith).

In retrospect, those who paid Lehrmann for his defamation claims against them were a little premature and risk averse in their decisions.

Reply
David says: 16 April 2024 at 7:43 am

Brilliant or dangerous? The premise is that if two people are in a room and then one of them is found later and is naked such that someone can see their private parts then sex occurred. No evidence of sexual activity required. It is not uncommon that two people head down the path towards a sexual encounter and something happens that brings it to an abrupt halt. People have fears that as they progress towards the naked stage the other party will learn/see/discover something that will make them lose interest and they will be humiliated. Ask yourself what about the physical evidence? Lehrmann maybe stupid but is he stupid enough that after having non-consensual sex he simply walked away and made no attempt to destroy what must have been abundant physical evidence? Why did Higgins fail to have physical evidence collected despite numerous opportunities for it to be collected? The balance of probabilities could say that either he walked away because there was no physical evidence, consistent with both parties actions, or sex was consensual, consistent with both parties actions. Neither parties actions seem logical if non consensual sex occurred. The approach to the physical evidence by both parties seems key to what actually happened because had an attempt been made to collect it we would know what happened as we know there was no attempt to destroy evidence by the accused.

I’m not defending Lehrmann as it is not worth the effort. The concern is the broader impact of such a ruling.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

Follow us on Instagram @canberracitynews