Defamation Trial Verdict: Accused Rapist Fails to Clear Name Against TV Network
In a high-profile defamation trial, an accused rapist's attempt to vindicate himself against a major television network ends in defeat as the judge rules in favor of the network, citing evidence that suggests his involvement in the crime.
An accused rapist, who tried to clear his name by suing a major Australian television network for defamation, has lost his case. The judge ruled that, based on the evidence, he is likely guilty of the crime.
This verdict marks the conclusion of a high-profile legal battle that has gripped the Australian public since 2021. It all began when Brittany Higgins, a former political staffer, accused her coworker Bruce Lehrmann of raping her in Parliament House after a night of drinking in 2019.
Justice Michael Lee declared that Mr Lehrmann had raped Miss Higgins at the end of a lengthy ruling. The ruling was broadcast live on YouTube from the Federal Court in Sydney on Monday, with thousands of viewers tuning in.
Miss Higgins made the allegation of rape against her colleague during an interview in 2021 on Network Ten's "The Project" program. The interview not only brought to light the alleged assault but also sparked questions about the response of ministers and political staffers following the incident.
After the interview aired, Lehrmann faced charges of sexual intercourse without consent. However, the trial was dropped in 2022 because of juror misconduct. It was never restarted because of concerns about Higgins' mental well-being.
Unable to clear his name in court, Lehrmann decided to take legal action for defamation. He alleged that Network Ten and "The Project" host Lisa Wilkinson harmed his reputation by sharing details in the show that led to his identification, even though his name was not mentioned.
Network Ten and Wilkinson decided to contest the charge by presenting a truth defense. This meant that in order to win the case, the network's lawyers had to prove that it was more likely than not that the rape occurred.
During the trial, it was revealed that Lee acknowledged that the two individuals engaged in sexual activity that night. However, it was determined that Higgins was too intoxicated to have been able to give consent, and Lehrmann did not make an effort to obtain it.
Lee expressed his satisfaction that Mr. Lehrmann was more focused on his own gratification and indifferent to Miss Higgins' consent.
The ruling dealt a severe blow to Lehrmann's efforts to prove his innocence. Lee cleverly stated in his judgement: "After escaping the lion's den, Mr. Lehrmann foolishly returned for his hat."
Lehrmann has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and CNN has reached out to his barrister for comment on the negative ruling.
Lisa Wilkinson (in white) arrives at court on April 15, 2024 in Sydney, Australia.
Lisa Wilkinson (in white) arrives at court on April 15, 2024 in Sydney, Australia.
Don Arnold/Getty Images
What happened that night
To reach his ruling, Lee examined notes, texts, social media messages, emails, hours of audio as well as closed-circuit television footage around the night in question.
He thought the evidence from the footage was more reliable in understanding what happened that night compared to the testimony of Lehrmann and Higgins. Lee found Lehrmann to be an unreliable witness.
Lee reviewed the night in question by watching footage from a bar in Canberra. The video captured the pair with their colleagues, engaged in lively conversations and taking turns buying drinks. Despite Lehrmann's denial of purchasing drinks, Lee disagreed, pointing out that the video clearly showed him using a card to pay for a round.
After meticulously studying the video, Lee concluded that Higgins had consumed 11 drinks, and was seen on camera to have stumbled.
Lee said Lehrmann “knew she was drinking excessively.”
Lee believed a colleague's account of seeing Lehrmann and Higgins kiss at the bar, despite their denials.
He discovered that Lehrmann suggested they go back to Parliament House to drink whiskey, not to retrieve his house keys or take notes on a French submarine deal.
Lee suggested that as Mr. Lehmann approached Parliament House, his main focus was not on French submarine contracts, but on something else entirely.
Lee refrained from blaming the Parliament House security guards for allowing them entry, noting the challenge of assessing Higgins' level of intoxication. He also questioned why Lehrmann left alone to hail an Uber after only 40 minutes.
Lee noted that when a man is faced with leaving a young woman late at night, especially one who had been drinking, common courtesy would dictate checking on her well-being and ensuring she gets home safely.
A security guard found Higgins with her dress hitched up and noted that she appeared disoriented, rolling into the fetal position. Higgins left Parliament House on her own after a few hours and did not immediately report the incident to the police.
Lehrmann was seen leaving court in videos posted by journalists online on Monday. He chose not to respond to the numerous questions shouted at him by reporters.
Network Ten described Monday’s ruling as “a triumph for truth” in a statement.
The statement praised Justice Lee's judgment as a vindication for Brittany Higgins, who bravely spoke out and empowered women across the nation.
Outside the court, journalist Wilkinson from Network Ten expressed her hope that the judgment would provide strength to women all over the country.
Editor's P/S:
The verdict in the Lehrmann defamation case has sent shockwaves through the Australian public. The judge's ruling that Lehrmann is likely guilty of
