Bruce Lehrmann, a former staffer in the Australian Parliament convicted of sexual assault, has been waiting as his appeal plays out. This latest ruling on defamation may be of particular interest to those looking to his future. Lehrmann contends that Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson published or broadcast remarks that unequivocally named him. He contends these remarks have seriously damaged his reputation. The appeal comes after a dark period characterized by allegations of sexual assault against Brittany Higgins, a woman staffer.
Lehrmann’s last defamation action, against Network Ten, resulted in a formal finding against him, although, like an innocent person, he insisted on going ahead with his defamation. He accrued $2 million in the court costs alone. These payments should be ongoing, but are presently on hold as they wait for the appeal’s decision. His own position is extremely precarious – he risks financial ruin if the appeal succeeds.
Background of the Case
Bruce Lehrmann was originally accused of raping Brittany Higgins in March 2019. This incident allegedly occurred in the office of their then-employer, Senator Linda Reynolds. Following these allegations, Lehrmann participated in interviews with Seven Network’s current affairs program, Spotlight, under an exclusive access agreement worth approximately $100,000 that included a year’s accommodation.
In his unsuccessful appeal, Lehrmann argued that he had not been named personally by Wilkinson’s journalistic work. Zali Burrows, his attorney, has vigorously challenged the conclusions of Justice Michael Lee. She maintains that on the balance of probabilities Lehrmann did not rape Higgins.
“The findings His Honour has made are all within the four corners of what was described,” – Justice Craig Colvin
Lehrmann’s testimony over five days—an enormous undertaking, given that he did not testify at his criminal trial. This granular narrative will make things even more complicated in the now-yearlong legal struggle to come. Burrows has called the decision to award just $20,000 in possible damages should Lehrmann prevail in the case “disappointing.” He claims that this amount of funding is not enough given the situation.
The Appeal Process
Lehrmann had been representing himself in the appeal at first, preparing the original statement of claim before seeking out legal help. This strategy illustrates his commitment to push back against the court’s past rulings, even as he works in a tricky legal environment.
As the appeal goes on, Lehrmann’s financial security is in limbo. If he loses the appeal, bankruptcy proceedings await him, heightening the stakes of this dueling legal fights. Coordinator Burrows on Lehrmann’s work as an outgrowth of a “fact-finding mission.” He stresses the very high bar that Lehrmann must overcome in order to defend his reputation.
As settlement may take years, this appeal outcome will have large implications on Lehrmann’s financial future. More importantly, though, its simple premise serves to further the conversation about accountability and justice in sexual assault cases. The court’s ruling will surely have implications beyond just his case. It will influence how the public thinks and how the media reports on subjects as delicate as this one.
Implications of Findings
His Honour Justice Michael Lee concluded that Lehrmann did rape Higgins. This decision has had a profoundly detrimental impact on Lehrmann both personally and professionally. And yet the media scrutiny, as well as public discourse around the issue of sexual assault in political spaces, was unprecedented. That resolution came out of that difficult situation.
Lehrmann’s argument centers around his belief that he was not clearly identifiable in Wilkinson’s reporting. He claims that this vagueness was instrumental in further damaging his reputation. Though granted the costs awarded for this defamation case, those funds are not available while she waits for the conclusion of the appeal process.
Burrows rightly takes to task the $20,000 maximum damages awarded by Justice Lee. He thinks this amount does not even weigh the gravity of the situation and it does not mean enough to recompense the pain and agony created by the charged allegations.
