April 15, 2024 • 18 mins
Yesterday, Justice Michael Lee handed down his judgement in the defamation case Bruce Lehrmann brought against journalist Lisa Wilkinson and Network Ten, finding that it was more likely than not Lehrmann raped fellow Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins in 2019 and therefore wasn’t defamed. In today's podcast, we'll explain the outcome of the civil case and what it means.
Remember you can always call 1800 RESPECT on 1800 737 732.
Hosts: Lucy Tassell and Sam Koslowski
Audio producer: Emmeline Peterson
Do you have feedback for the podcast? Share your thoughts via our survey!
Subscribe to The Daily Aus newsletter
Buy our book No Silly Questions
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Already, and this is the Daily This is the Daily Off,
This is the Daily ohs oh.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Now it makes sense.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Just a quick trigger warning. We'll be talking about sexual
assault in today's episode. Help is available at one eight
hundred respect that's one eight hundred seven three seven seven.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Three to two.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
At their website. They've got online chat and video chat
as well.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Good morning, and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Tuesday,
the sixteenth of April. I'm Sam, I'm Lucy. Yesterday, Justice
Michael Lee handed down his judgment in the defamation case
Bruce Lehman brought against journalist Lisa Wilkinson and Network ten,
finding that it was more likely than not that Lherman
raped fellow liberal staffer Britney Higgins in twenty nineteen and
(00:50):
therefore was not defamed.
Speaker 4 (00:52):
Mister Lherman raped Mishiggins.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
I sincerely hope that this judgment gives strength to women
around the country.
Speaker 4 (01:00):
Having escaped the lines dean, mister Lehman made the mistake
of coming back for his head.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
There is nothing simple or straightforward about this case. But
today TDF fact checker Lucy Tassel and I will endeavor
to unpack it. But first, Lucy what's making headlines.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
The New South Wales Coroner has been granted extra funding
for its inquest into the mass stabbing at Bondai Junction
in Sydney's East last weekend. The Coroner's Court has been
allocated an additional eighteen million dollars in funding, which covers
trauma informed care for victims and families. Six people were
killed and the attacker was shot by police. New South
Wales Police Commissioner Karen Webb said it's obvious to me,
(01:41):
it's obvious to detectives that the offender focused on women
and avoided the men. The government has said its approach
to this is similar to the Lint Cafe siege in
twenty fourteen.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
A church leader and several worshippers were stabbed at Christ
the Good Shepherd church in Sydney's West last night. The
event was live streamed now. According to New Southwales Police,
the injured people suffered non life threatening injuries and were
treated by New South Wales Ambulance paramedics before being sent
to hospital. Following the incident, crowds gathered at the location
(02:14):
and police launched a wild scale public order operation. Two
police officers were injured, including one who was hit with
a brick and a number of police vehicles sustained damage.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
A Victorian court has fined betting company Blue Bet fifty
thousand dollars for breaching advertising rules by putting ads on
public roads. The state's Gambling Commission took the company to
court after an investigation found Blue Bet placed billboards across
freeways in Victoria in quote the prime position to target
man aged fifteen to fifty four. Magistrate Greg Thomas said
(02:49):
the breach shows quote a high degree of negligence by
Blue Bet, which had pleaded guilty to.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
The charges, and today's good news. Over the weekends, the
A League Women may history, setting a new Australian record
for the most attended season of women's sport in the
semi final between the Newcastle Jets and the Central Coast Mariners.
Over the weekend, A League Women became the most attended
season in Australian history. The cumulative number of spectators reached
(03:15):
nearly three hundred thousand people that surpassed the previous record
held by the twenty twenty three AFL Women's regular season. So,
just before we get started, I just wanted to make
one quick note. Tda's editor in chief is Billye fitz Simon's,
who is the daughter of Lisa Wilkinson. Billy had no
(03:35):
editorial oversight or involvement with this story or any post
we've made about this story's developments.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
That's right.
Speaker 1 (03:42):
Yesterday, Sam, we watched Federal Court Judge Michael Lee hand
down a judgment in a case that has, I think
it's safe to say, really captured the nation's attention. I mean,
just looking at the numbers on the Federal Court live
stream yesterday, forty four thousand people at its peak, and
we can assume more watching on TVs as it was
also broadcast in part on TV. I think it could
(04:06):
be easy, certainly for me, it is kind of years
and years down the track to lose sight of the
actual origin of this case. Why so many people took
time out of their days.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
To watch a very dry, very upsetting one camera.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
For many hours to watch a judgment in a defamation
case be handed down.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
So can you take me back to the start.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
So to do that, we have to go back to
twenty nineteen and Brittany Higgins and Bruce Lehman were staffers
for Defense Minister Linda Reynolds in Canberra and as Justice
Lee outlined in court yesterday, his understanding of the facts
is that the two went out for drinks after work
with a big group of friends to several venues around Canberra.
(04:50):
Then they returned to Parliament House, their workplace, and went
into Reynolds' office and this was the early hours of
the next morning. Now Justice Lee f that it's more
likely than not, and we're going to come back to
what exactly that means that Bruce Lehmon raped Britney Higgins
at that office.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
So that's March twenty nineteen. That's a long way from
April twenty twenty four. What has happened in those intervening years.
Speaker 3 (05:16):
So then we fast forward two years to February of
twenty twenty one, and that's when Brittany Higgins went to
the media with these allegations that she had been raped
in Parliament House by an unnamed at that point political staffer,
which we now know is Bruce Lemon. And I just
want to be really clear in a criminal court he
has always denied this, and in fact he's always denied
(05:38):
any sexual contact happened between them. Higgins sat down with
interviews with news dot Com today U Samantha Maiden was
the journalist there and with journalist Lisa Wilkinson who was
then working with the Network ten show the project, the
interview with Wilkinson and the story in news dot com
do U came out on the same day. That was
February fifteenth, twenty twenty one.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
That was a huge day. That was really it's.
Speaker 3 (06:02):
Really a nation defining story.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
It was an inflection point, you know, up until this
point and then everything changes after that. So you've mentioned
that this case that Luhrman's brought this case against Lisa
wilkinsoner Network ten, but you have mentioned news dot com
dot AU, So were they also being sued.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
Yeah, they were also being sued, and so was the
ABC for broadcasting a speech by Higgins, as well as
Wilkinson and Network ten. But Lherman actually settled the cases
with news dot com, to U and ABC on the
first day of these exact proceedings last year.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
So we've started with these very publicized allegations, but they're
made against a person who we don't know who they are.
It's an unnamed person. So how do we get to
knowing who Bruce Lehman is? How do we get from
anonymous person not named, not described to, or not specifically
described to the person able to breed a defamation case.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
Well, this is actually the first bit of what Justice
Lee needed to establish in his judgment yesterday, because in
order to sue someone for defamation, you need to make
it clear that they're talking about you. And Justice Lee
found that, Yeah, a reasonable person would ascertain that the
person who was the subject of Britney Higgins's comments in
that project interview was Bruce Lehman, even though Brittney Higgins
(07:23):
didn't specify the name of who she alleged had raped her.
But you know, one of the first things that Justice
Lee found was that he was identifiable. Justice Lee said
he was quote amply satisfied that Lehman was identified, and
this was based on evidence given by witnesses that he
described as quote telltale.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
So what was this telltale evidence?
Speaker 3 (07:44):
Well, Justice Lee turned to the fact that Lehman and
Higgins had been at drinks on the night in question,
that he was at the time of the interview working
in Sydney, which Lehman was, and some loose details about
the job he'd had before working for Reynolds. And all
of this, a few other points were enough for some
witnesses with quote specific knowledge of the situation to know
(08:07):
who Higgins was talking about. So picture somebody you know
watching this interview on television. These facts started to emerge
in Britney Higgins's interview. That was enough to really say, yes,
I think I know who they're talking about.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
And we saw some of that evidence being tendered in
the trial of like various group chats various people within
Lehman's life kind of saying we think that he was
probably the subject of this interview that we're all watching.
Speaker 3 (08:36):
Yeah, but the public only really became aware of Bruce
Lehman as the subject of this when the matter proceeded
to a criminal trial in twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
Yeah, So what happened with that criminal.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
Trial, Well, that trial was suspended due to DURA misconducts
and a retrial was later abandoned. And I think that's
what makes this defamation case really notable because there was
never a criminal finding the way about what happened on
that night in March twenty nineteen, and there still isn't
and I think that's an important point. But now there
is a civil finding. But this case, yeah, really moved
(09:10):
into then the question of reputational damage.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
So Lehman believes that he's been identified despite not being
named in this original interview. That kind of gets the
ball rolling on this. And now that there hasn't been
a criminal trial, his name is just sort of out
there associated with this unproven allegation. So is that what
kind of brings him to this point of bringing a
defamation case exactly?
Speaker 3 (09:32):
And then this kind of forms then the second and
third parts of what Justice Lee needed to establish to
work out whether Lehman had been defamed. And so once
we'd established that it was in fact Lehman who was
the subject of the interview, we then move on to
is the content of the interview the claims made against Lehman?
Are they true or not? And if they were true,
(09:54):
then Channel ten and Lisa Wilkinson could rely on what's
called the truth defense. So in order to kind of
prove for the truth defense, it almost became a forensic
trial in nature. There were witnesses being called who were
on security at Parliament House that night, there were people
who were at the drinks, there was ex partners of
both parties. Because what the court needed to ascertain is
(10:16):
whether or not what Channel ten were claiming about Bruce
Lehman was true, but they needed to do so not
beyond the reasonable doubt, but on the balance of probabilities.
Speaker 1 (10:27):
So I definitely have heard the phrase beyond a reasonable
doubt used before in terms of criminal cases.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
So what's the balance of probabilities? How's that different?
Speaker 3 (10:36):
So in the criminal system and the civil system, there's
two different burdens of proof, and a burden of proof
is the words used to describe what a party needs
to prove in order to prosecute the case. Now, in
the criminal system, the burden of proof is beyond the
reasonable doubt, and what that essentially means is in the
mind of the judge or a jury, there needs to
(10:56):
be no doubt in their mind that what is being
claimed did indeed happen. So think about something like speeding
in your car. It's beyond a reasonable doubt because you
were either going one hundred klumeter this hour or you
weren't going one hundred klometers an hour, And so it's
the job of a prosecutor to really prove that there's
absolutely no doubt that this happened. In a civil system,
(11:20):
we use a burden of proof called the balance of probabilities.
And the question that needs to be answered here is
is it more likely than not that something happened. So
think about it almost as like fifty one percent. Is
it fifty one percent likely that this happened, And there's
more chance that it did happen than it didn't happen.
And so that was the level of proof that Justice
(11:41):
Lee was looking at when making his determination yesterday. And
Justice Lee did find that it is more likely than
not that Lehmann did rape Higgins in Minister Reynolds's office
in March twenty nineteen.
Speaker 4 (11:53):
I consider it more likely than not in those early
hours mister Lehman was held bent on having sex with
a woman he found sixtually attracted. He's pursuit of Grantiford cushion.
He did not here one way or the other, whether
miss Higgins understood or agreed to what was going on.
Mister Lhermann raped mis Higgins.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
So it really has come down to it's a lower
kind of burden of proof than a criminal finding. Bruce
Lemon's not going to jail.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
Over this, no, So these have no relevance in the
kind of criminal world in terms of the criminal justice system.
Bruce Lemon has neither been found guilty or not guilty.
The trial was never finished.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
So there's obviously a lot to this case.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
That being said, though, so Justice Michael Lee has handed
down a three hundred page plus decision. So what else
was kind of in that judgment?
Speaker 3 (12:46):
Well, look, there was a lot and you know, we
have this three hundred page decision that when printed would
look and feel like a novel. We also had yesterday
I think it was two and a half hours of
judgment delivered felt like more. Yeah, it was very long,
and so there's lots of an analysis by Justice Lee.
He goes through systematically every witness, almost to us called
(13:06):
discusses the reliability of everybody from Britney Higgins, Bruce Lehman,
Lisa Wilkinson, everybody involved in the case really and what
he found, notably was that Bruce Lehman was found to
have told quote deliberate lies about quote important issues in
the case.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
Now, he also said that Higgins, who testified in the
case to support ten and Wilkinson's case, had said quote
untruths or distortions herself throughout giving evidence. But something really
important to note here, and I was quite impressed that
Justice Lee went into this was he said that lawyers
on both sides had agreed that quote, trauma has a
(13:44):
severe impact on memory by splintering and fragmenting memories, inconsistencies
often observed in reliable reports of sexual assault, and is
not in and of itself a measure of deception.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
That's amazing because that's something that we certainly have read
about in scientific articles, but it feels rare for that
to have come up in a high profile case like.
Speaker 3 (14:05):
This, definitely, and I think it will be used by
other courts throughout Australia as a model for how to
incorporate a trauma based response to these types of cases totally.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
And that also includes he found on the balance of
probabilities that there was a trauma that informed this.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
Case exactly, and so then you know, putting all those
parts together, Whilst he found that Ten and Wilkinson did
identify Lehman in the broadcast, he found that Ten and
Wilkinson could rely on this truth defense and therefore Ten
and Wilkinson were not held liable for defamation from Lehman.
So that leaves us in a very interesting position.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
Yeah, so what happens.
Speaker 3 (14:46):
Now, Well, we have another court date, and that's the
twenty second of April, so we don't have to wait
too long for that, and that's when parties submit what's
called costs, and costs is essentially think of it as
a receipt of how much it had cost for the
legal representation that the parties have had to have to
present their case at this trial. And what typically happens.
(15:07):
And we don't know whether this is going to happen
for sure, but it's reasonably likely there I am sounding
like a civil lawyer. It's reasonably likely that it is
going to happen is that Lhman will be ordered to
either partially or fully cover the legal costs of ten
and Wilkinson. And this is almost a recognition from the
court that in failing to convince the court of his argument,
(15:31):
somebody has to foot the bill, right And so I
mean that could be in the millions of dollars and
we're not going to know exactly how much that is
until the twenty second of April. That's when the parties
have to submit their cost to the court and then
Justice League will go back and review them and work
out how much Bruce Lehman has to pay. Now It's
really important that we also acknowledge that Bruce Lehmon has
(15:53):
the option to appeal this civil case. So whilst it
might feel like a conclusion in the end of the road,
it's not exactly the end of this story, I.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
See, And certainly there are we won't touch on them today,
but certainly there are other legal actions from other parties
in this case. We have not heard the last of it,
but at least for today we have a finding sam
Justice Michael Lee has developed a reputation for having little
one liners throughout this very dark case that have really
(16:26):
been kind of a silver lining. Can you I think
my favorite was when he said that mister Lhman had
quote escaped the lions den but gone back for his hat.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
Can you explain what that means?
Speaker 3 (16:37):
Yeah, he certainly was entertaining during the judgment, and it
did make watching the two and a half hour broadcast
with you a little more enjoyable. But I think this
phrase really does hit an important point and one important
for us to end on. And by saying that he
escaped the line and went back to get his hat
or whatever exactly, the phrase was. What the Justice is
(16:58):
saying is Bruce Lehem and brought this case on himself,
and he was the one who brought to the court
the claim of defamation that triggered this long, detail oriented
exposure of what happened that night in Parliament House and
indeed a huge judgment yesterday that essentially degraded Lehman's character
(17:20):
from the Federal Court of Australia. I thought it was
a really apt expression. There's now been a couple of
these defamation cases in Australia where people have brought an action,
bringing their particular case back into the center of the
media spotlight and then lost. And yeah, he certainly did,
you know, escape the lion, but went back to get
his hat and got bidden.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
Yeah, was the hat really worth it?
Speaker 3 (17:43):
That's an interesting question. So, as I said, Lehman can
still appeal this case. He has still maintained his innocence
in a criminal court. But a big moment in defamation
law and in media law here in Australia.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
If these episodes brought anything up for you, you can
call one eight hundred respect which is one eight hundred
seven three seven seven three two and at their website
they've got online chats and video calls.
Speaker 3 (18:09):
My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda
Bunjelung Calgaton woman from Gadighl country. The Daily oz acknowledges
that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the
Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and torrest
Rate island and nations.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
We pay our respects to the first peoples of these countries,
both past and present.
Already, and this is the Daily This is the Daily Off,
This is the Daily ohs oh.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
Now it makes sense.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
Just a quick trigger warning. We'll be talking about sexual
assault in today's episode. Help is available at one eight
hundred respect that's one eight hundred seven three seven seven.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Three to two.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
At their website. They've got online chat and video chat
as well.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Good morning, and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Tuesday,
the sixteenth of April. I'm Sam, I'm Lucy. Yesterday, Justice
Michael Lee handed down his judgment in the defamation case
Bruce Lehman brought against journalist Lisa Wilkinson and Network ten,
finding that it was more likely than not that Lherman
raped fellow liberal staffer Britney Higgins in twenty nineteen and
(00:50):
therefore was not defamed.
Speaker 4 (00:52):
Mister Lherman raped Mishiggins.
Speaker 3 (00:54):
I sincerely hope that this judgment gives strength to women
around the country.
Speaker 4 (01:00):
Having escaped the lines dean, mister Lehman made the mistake
of coming back for his head.
Speaker 3 (01:04):
There is nothing simple or straightforward about this case. But
today TDF fact checker Lucy Tassel and I will endeavor
to unpack it. But first, Lucy what's making headlines.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
The New South Wales Coroner has been granted extra funding
for its inquest into the mass stabbing at Bondai Junction
in Sydney's East last weekend. The Coroner's Court has been
allocated an additional eighteen million dollars in funding, which covers
trauma informed care for victims and families. Six people were
killed and the attacker was shot by police. New South
Wales Police Commissioner Karen Webb said it's obvious to me,
(01:41):
it's obvious to detectives that the offender focused on women
and avoided the men. The government has said its approach
to this is similar to the Lint Cafe siege in
twenty fourteen.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
A church leader and several worshippers were stabbed at Christ
the Good Shepherd church in Sydney's West last night. The
event was live streamed now. According to New Southwales Police,
the injured people suffered non life threatening injuries and were
treated by New South Wales Ambulance paramedics before being sent
to hospital. Following the incident, crowds gathered at the location
(02:14):
and police launched a wild scale public order operation. Two
police officers were injured, including one who was hit with
a brick and a number of police vehicles sustained damage.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
A Victorian court has fined betting company Blue Bet fifty
thousand dollars for breaching advertising rules by putting ads on
public roads. The state's Gambling Commission took the company to
court after an investigation found Blue Bet placed billboards across
freeways in Victoria in quote the prime position to target
man aged fifteen to fifty four. Magistrate Greg Thomas said
(02:49):
the breach shows quote a high degree of negligence by
Blue Bet, which had pleaded guilty to.
Speaker 3 (02:54):
The charges, and today's good news. Over the weekends, the
A League Women may history, setting a new Australian record
for the most attended season of women's sport in the
semi final between the Newcastle Jets and the Central Coast Mariners.
Over the weekend, A League Women became the most attended
season in Australian history. The cumulative number of spectators reached
(03:15):
nearly three hundred thousand people that surpassed the previous record
held by the twenty twenty three AFL Women's regular season. So,
just before we get started, I just wanted to make
one quick note. Tda's editor in chief is Billye fitz Simon's,
who is the daughter of Lisa Wilkinson. Billy had no
(03:35):
editorial oversight or involvement with this story or any post
we've made about this story's developments.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
That's right.
Speaker 1 (03:42):
Yesterday, Sam, we watched Federal Court Judge Michael Lee hand
down a judgment in a case that has, I think
it's safe to say, really captured the nation's attention. I mean,
just looking at the numbers on the Federal Court live
stream yesterday, forty four thousand people at its peak, and
we can assume more watching on TVs as it was
also broadcast in part on TV. I think it could
(04:06):
be easy, certainly for me, it is kind of years
and years down the track to lose sight of the
actual origin of this case. Why so many people took
time out of their days.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
To watch a very dry, very upsetting one camera.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
For many hours to watch a judgment in a defamation
case be handed down.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
So can you take me back to the start.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
So to do that, we have to go back to
twenty nineteen and Brittany Higgins and Bruce Lehman were staffers
for Defense Minister Linda Reynolds in Canberra and as Justice
Lee outlined in court yesterday, his understanding of the facts
is that the two went out for drinks after work
with a big group of friends to several venues around Canberra.
(04:50):
Then they returned to Parliament House, their workplace, and went
into Reynolds' office and this was the early hours of
the next morning. Now Justice Lee f that it's more
likely than not, and we're going to come back to
what exactly that means that Bruce Lehmon raped Britney Higgins
at that office.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
So that's March twenty nineteen. That's a long way from
April twenty twenty four. What has happened in those intervening years.
Speaker 3 (05:16):
So then we fast forward two years to February of
twenty twenty one, and that's when Brittany Higgins went to
the media with these allegations that she had been raped
in Parliament House by an unnamed at that point political staffer,
which we now know is Bruce Lemon. And I just
want to be really clear in a criminal court he
has always denied this, and in fact he's always denied
(05:38):
any sexual contact happened between them. Higgins sat down with
interviews with news dot Com today U Samantha Maiden was
the journalist there and with journalist Lisa Wilkinson who was
then working with the Network ten show the project, the
interview with Wilkinson and the story in news dot com
do U came out on the same day. That was
February fifteenth, twenty twenty one.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
That was a huge day. That was really it's.
Speaker 3 (06:02):
Really a nation defining story.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
It was an inflection point, you know, up until this
point and then everything changes after that. So you've mentioned
that this case that Luhrman's brought this case against Lisa
wilkinsoner Network ten, but you have mentioned news dot com
dot AU, So were they also being sued.
Speaker 3 (06:21):
Yeah, they were also being sued, and so was the
ABC for broadcasting a speech by Higgins, as well as
Wilkinson and Network ten. But Lherman actually settled the cases
with news dot com, to U and ABC on the
first day of these exact proceedings last year.
Speaker 1 (06:38):
So we've started with these very publicized allegations, but they're
made against a person who we don't know who they are.
It's an unnamed person. So how do we get to
knowing who Bruce Lehman is? How do we get from
anonymous person not named, not described to, or not specifically
described to the person able to breed a defamation case.
Speaker 3 (07:01):
Well, this is actually the first bit of what Justice
Lee needed to establish in his judgment yesterday, because in
order to sue someone for defamation, you need to make
it clear that they're talking about you. And Justice Lee
found that, Yeah, a reasonable person would ascertain that the
person who was the subject of Britney Higgins's comments in
that project interview was Bruce Lehman, even though Brittney Higgins
(07:23):
didn't specify the name of who she alleged had raped her.
But you know, one of the first things that Justice
Lee found was that he was identifiable. Justice Lee said
he was quote amply satisfied that Lehman was identified, and
this was based on evidence given by witnesses that he
described as quote telltale.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
So what was this telltale evidence?
Speaker 3 (07:44):
Well, Justice Lee turned to the fact that Lehman and
Higgins had been at drinks on the night in question,
that he was at the time of the interview working
in Sydney, which Lehman was, and some loose details about
the job he'd had before working for Reynolds. And all
of this, a few other points were enough for some
witnesses with quote specific knowledge of the situation to know
(08:07):
who Higgins was talking about. So picture somebody you know
watching this interview on television. These facts started to emerge
in Britney Higgins's interview. That was enough to really say, yes,
I think I know who they're talking about.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
And we saw some of that evidence being tendered in
the trial of like various group chats various people within
Lehman's life kind of saying we think that he was
probably the subject of this interview that we're all watching.
Speaker 3 (08:36):
Yeah, but the public only really became aware of Bruce
Lehman as the subject of this when the matter proceeded
to a criminal trial in twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
Yeah, So what happened with that criminal.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
Trial, Well, that trial was suspended due to DURA misconducts
and a retrial was later abandoned. And I think that's
what makes this defamation case really notable because there was
never a criminal finding the way about what happened on
that night in March twenty nineteen, and there still isn't
and I think that's an important point. But now there
is a civil finding. But this case, yeah, really moved
(09:10):
into then the question of reputational damage.
Speaker 1 (09:13):
So Lehman believes that he's been identified despite not being
named in this original interview. That kind of gets the
ball rolling on this. And now that there hasn't been
a criminal trial, his name is just sort of out
there associated with this unproven allegation. So is that what
kind of brings him to this point of bringing a
defamation case exactly?
Speaker 3 (09:32):
And then this kind of forms then the second and
third parts of what Justice Lee needed to establish to
work out whether Lehman had been defamed. And so once
we'd established that it was in fact Lehman who was
the subject of the interview, we then move on to
is the content of the interview the claims made against Lehman?
Are they true or not? And if they were true,
(09:54):
then Channel ten and Lisa Wilkinson could rely on what's
called the truth defense. So in order to kind of
prove for the truth defense, it almost became a forensic
trial in nature. There were witnesses being called who were
on security at Parliament House that night, there were people
who were at the drinks, there was ex partners of
both parties. Because what the court needed to ascertain is
(10:16):
whether or not what Channel ten were claiming about Bruce
Lehman was true, but they needed to do so not
beyond the reasonable doubt, but on the balance of probabilities.
Speaker 1 (10:27):
So I definitely have heard the phrase beyond a reasonable
doubt used before in terms of criminal cases.
Speaker 2 (10:33):
So what's the balance of probabilities? How's that different?
Speaker 3 (10:36):
So in the criminal system and the civil system, there's
two different burdens of proof, and a burden of proof
is the words used to describe what a party needs
to prove in order to prosecute the case. Now, in
the criminal system, the burden of proof is beyond the
reasonable doubt, and what that essentially means is in the
mind of the judge or a jury, there needs to
(10:56):
be no doubt in their mind that what is being
claimed did indeed happen. So think about something like speeding
in your car. It's beyond a reasonable doubt because you
were either going one hundred klumeter this hour or you
weren't going one hundred klometers an hour, And so it's
the job of a prosecutor to really prove that there's
absolutely no doubt that this happened. In a civil system,
(11:20):
we use a burden of proof called the balance of probabilities.
And the question that needs to be answered here is
is it more likely than not that something happened. So
think about it almost as like fifty one percent. Is
it fifty one percent likely that this happened, And there's
more chance that it did happen than it didn't happen.
And so that was the level of proof that Justice
(11:41):
Lee was looking at when making his determination yesterday. And
Justice Lee did find that it is more likely than
not that Lehmann did rape Higgins in Minister Reynolds's office
in March twenty nineteen.
Speaker 4 (11:53):
I consider it more likely than not in those early
hours mister Lehman was held bent on having sex with
a woman he found sixtually attracted. He's pursuit of Grantiford cushion.
He did not here one way or the other, whether
miss Higgins understood or agreed to what was going on.
Mister Lhermann raped mis Higgins.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
So it really has come down to it's a lower
kind of burden of proof than a criminal finding. Bruce
Lemon's not going to jail.
Speaker 3 (12:19):
Over this, no, So these have no relevance in the
kind of criminal world in terms of the criminal justice system.
Bruce Lemon has neither been found guilty or not guilty.
The trial was never finished.
Speaker 2 (12:31):
So there's obviously a lot to this case.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
That being said, though, so Justice Michael Lee has handed
down a three hundred page plus decision. So what else
was kind of in that judgment?
Speaker 3 (12:46):
Well, look, there was a lot and you know, we
have this three hundred page decision that when printed would
look and feel like a novel. We also had yesterday
I think it was two and a half hours of
judgment delivered felt like more. Yeah, it was very long,
and so there's lots of an analysis by Justice Lee.
He goes through systematically every witness, almost to us called
(13:06):
discusses the reliability of everybody from Britney Higgins, Bruce Lehman,
Lisa Wilkinson, everybody involved in the case really and what
he found, notably was that Bruce Lehman was found to
have told quote deliberate lies about quote important issues in
the case.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
Now, he also said that Higgins, who testified in the
case to support ten and Wilkinson's case, had said quote
untruths or distortions herself throughout giving evidence. But something really
important to note here, and I was quite impressed that
Justice Lee went into this was he said that lawyers
on both sides had agreed that quote, trauma has a
(13:44):
severe impact on memory by splintering and fragmenting memories, inconsistencies
often observed in reliable reports of sexual assault, and is
not in and of itself a measure of deception.
Speaker 1 (13:56):
That's amazing because that's something that we certainly have read
about in scientific articles, but it feels rare for that
to have come up in a high profile case like.
Speaker 3 (14:05):
This, definitely, and I think it will be used by
other courts throughout Australia as a model for how to
incorporate a trauma based response to these types of cases totally.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
And that also includes he found on the balance of
probabilities that there was a trauma that informed this.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
Case exactly, and so then you know, putting all those
parts together, Whilst he found that Ten and Wilkinson did
identify Lehman in the broadcast, he found that Ten and
Wilkinson could rely on this truth defense and therefore Ten
and Wilkinson were not held liable for defamation from Lehman.
So that leaves us in a very interesting position.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
Yeah, so what happens.
Speaker 3 (14:46):
Now, Well, we have another court date, and that's the
twenty second of April, so we don't have to wait
too long for that, and that's when parties submit what's
called costs, and costs is essentially think of it as
a receipt of how much it had cost for the
legal representation that the parties have had to have to
present their case at this trial. And what typically happens.
(15:07):
And we don't know whether this is going to happen
for sure, but it's reasonably likely there I am sounding
like a civil lawyer. It's reasonably likely that it is
going to happen is that Lhman will be ordered to
either partially or fully cover the legal costs of ten
and Wilkinson. And this is almost a recognition from the
court that in failing to convince the court of his argument,
(15:31):
somebody has to foot the bill, right And so I
mean that could be in the millions of dollars and
we're not going to know exactly how much that is
until the twenty second of April. That's when the parties
have to submit their cost to the court and then
Justice League will go back and review them and work
out how much Bruce Lehman has to pay. Now It's
really important that we also acknowledge that Bruce Lehmon has
(15:53):
the option to appeal this civil case. So whilst it
might feel like a conclusion in the end of the road,
it's not exactly the end of this story, I.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
See, And certainly there are we won't touch on them today,
but certainly there are other legal actions from other parties
in this case. We have not heard the last of it,
but at least for today we have a finding sam
Justice Michael Lee has developed a reputation for having little
one liners throughout this very dark case that have really
(16:26):
been kind of a silver lining. Can you I think
my favorite was when he said that mister Lhman had
quote escaped the lions den but gone back for his hat.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
Can you explain what that means?
Speaker 3 (16:37):
Yeah, he certainly was entertaining during the judgment, and it
did make watching the two and a half hour broadcast
with you a little more enjoyable. But I think this
phrase really does hit an important point and one important
for us to end on. And by saying that he
escaped the line and went back to get his hat
or whatever exactly, the phrase was. What the Justice is
(16:58):
saying is Bruce Lehem and brought this case on himself,
and he was the one who brought to the court
the claim of defamation that triggered this long, detail oriented
exposure of what happened that night in Parliament House and
indeed a huge judgment yesterday that essentially degraded Lehman's character
(17:20):
from the Federal Court of Australia. I thought it was
a really apt expression. There's now been a couple of
these defamation cases in Australia where people have brought an action,
bringing their particular case back into the center of the
media spotlight and then lost. And yeah, he certainly did,
you know, escape the lion, but went back to get
his hat and got bidden.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
Yeah, was the hat really worth it?
Speaker 3 (17:43):
That's an interesting question. So, as I said, Lehman can
still appeal this case. He has still maintained his innocence
in a criminal court. But a big moment in defamation
law and in media law here in Australia.
Speaker 1 (17:54):
If these episodes brought anything up for you, you can
call one eight hundred respect which is one eight hundred
seven three seven seven three two and at their website
they've got online chats and video calls.
Speaker 3 (18:09):
My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda
Bunjelung Calgaton woman from Gadighl country. The Daily oz acknowledges
that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the
Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and torrest
Rate island and nations.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
We pay our respects to the first peoples of these countries,
both past and present.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!