Federal Court Justice Michael Lee recently delivered a 324-page decision in Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation case against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson. The case, dubbed “The Lehrmann imbroglio” by Lee, was filled with unexpected twists and turns that led to collateral damage. Lehrmann had brought the defamation case after his criminal trial collapsed, accusing Ten and Wilkinson of suggesting he was guilty of raping Brittany Higgins in 2019.
Justice Lee found that Network Ten’s interview with Higgins, even though Lehrmann was not named, identified him as the alleged rapist. Ten and Wilkinson relied on a defence of truth, attempting to prove that Lehrmann had raped Higgins on the balance of probabilities. While Higgins’ credibility was called into question, Lee ultimately found her evidence about the sexual assault to be truthful. Lehrmann’s credibility was severely criticized, with Lee describing his attachment to the truth as tenuous.
Evidence was presented that Lehrmann had made false statements about various matters, including his reason for returning to Parliament House on the night of the alleged assault. Lee also noted Lehrmann’s claims about working on question time briefs and gaining entry to Parliament House with Higgins were convenient and lacked credibility. The judge accepted evidence that Lehrmann and Higgins had shared a passionate kiss at a nightclub before the alleged assault, indicating Lehrmann’s motives.
Lee highlighted Lehrmann’s untruthful statements about his access to funds on the night of the rape, noting discrepancies in his bank records and payments at a bar. The judge emphasized that Lehrmann’s dishonesty about his financial resources was not a minor detail, but a significant factor in assessing his credibility. Lehrmann’s inconsistencies, false statements, and questionable motives were scrutinized throughout the judgment, painting a damaging picture of his character.
The case was marked by intense scrutiny of Lehrmann’s actions and credibility, with Justice Lee delivering a scathing assessment of Lehrmann’s behavior and integrity. The judgment highlighted Lehrmann’s willingness to depart from the truth when it suited him, casting doubt on his reliability as a witness. Despite some issues with Higgins’ evidence, the judge ultimately found her account of the sexual assault to be credible and truthful. The Lehrmann defamation case served as a cautionary tale of the complexities and challenges in legal battles involving high-profile individuals and serious allegations.
Overall, Justice Michael Lee’s detailed decision in Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation case against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson shed light on the intricate web of evidence, motives, and credibility issues that colored the proceedings. Lehrmann’s credibility was called into question, while Higgins’ account of the alleged assault was deemed truthful. The judgment served as a comprehensive analysis of the parties’ actions and statements, highlighting the challenges in navigating high-stakes legal battles that are laden with personal and professional reputations on the line.
