Add Category
In the three years since Brittany Higgins first alleged she had been raped at a ministerial office at Parliament House in Canberra, the collateral damage has been unprecedented.
But Monday's findings in the Federal Court defamation case brought by Bruce Lehrmann against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson have finally gleaned some clarity.
Justice Michael Lee found that, on the balance of probabilities, Bruce Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins.
And after an oral summary that last more than two and a half hours — and a full judgement that spans 324 pages — some key takeaways are beginning to emerge.
Mr Lehrmann's criminal trial collapsed in 2022 with no findings against him, and he has always maintained his innocence.
What do the findings mean for our understanding of consent?
During his hours-long judgment on Monday, Justice Lee made some observations about consent, and some of the perceptions of what it constitutes.
There are slight variations in legislation across Australian jurisdictions about what needs to be proven to determine a sexual assault has occurred.
But Justice Lee said he focused on the "ordinary meaning of the word rape" in determining this case.
He told the court he was not satisfied that Ms Higgins had verbally or physically protested while Mr Lehrmann was having sex with her.
But he later said such protestations were unnecessary, because the contemporary understanding of rape had evolved from "historical conceptions … which relied upon notions of force and resistance".
"She did not consent, because she was so drunk on the couch that at some point, she was not aware of her surroundings and then suddenly became aware of Mr Lehrmann being on top of her, at which time he was performing the sexual act, which he then continued to a conclusion," Justice Lee said in his judgment.
Another important feature in this part of the judgment was the question of whether Mr Lehrmann knew Ms Higgins had not consented.
Justice Lee said he believed Mr Lehrmann was "hell-bent on having sex" with Ms Higgins.
He said he found Mr Lehrmann was "so intent on gratification to be indifferent to Ms Higgins's consent", and this was sufficient to prove that sex between the pair was not consensual.
Brittany Higgins was unreliable, but still credible
From the outset, Justice Lee said the case had become a "credit case involving two people who are both, in different ways, unreliable historians".
He said Mr Lehrmann told "deliberate lies" and at one point while drinking on the night in question "spun the tall tale he was waiting on a clearance to come through so that he could go and work at ASIS [the Australian Secret Intelligence Service]".
"All these falsehoods, together with his Walter Mitty-like imaginings, … demonstrate that Mr Lehrmann had no compunction about departing from the truth if he thought it expedient," Justice Lee said.
"To remark that Mr Lehrmann was a poor witness is an exercise in understatement."
But Justice Lee also picked apart aspects of Brittany Higgins's evidence as containing various "untruths" which became more serious over time.
He found Ms Higgins had "selectively curated material on her phone prior to giving it to the AFP" and "sometimes told untruths when it suited her".
"…By 2021 and afterwards, most [untruths] were part of a broader narrative or theme she and her boyfriend wished others to believe," he told the court.
Justice Lee was referencing what he has labelled "the cover up narrative", in which Ms Higgins and her boyfriend David Sharaz "crafted a narrative accusing others of putting up roadblocks and forcing her two years earlier of having to choose between her career and seeking justice by making and pursuing a complaint".
But despite his reservations, he still found Ms Higgins credible when it came to the key question of whether she and Mr Lehrmann did have sex.
"There is the lack of nuance and superficiality of dismissing a witness as always untruthful or unreliable just because aspects — even important aspects — of their evidence fall into that description," he said.
"Her evidence that she was not fully aware of her surroundings but then suddenly became aware of Mr Lehrmann on top of her, at which time he was performing the sexual act, when given orally before me, struck me forcefully as being credible and as having the ring of truth."
Justice Lee also said some of her actions immediately after the night in question may have been tainted by the effects of trauma.
"I do not consider any of this 2019 conduct … is necessarily inconsistent with a victim of sexual assault seeking to process what had occurred; working her way through her feelings, questioning her conduct, considering what she should do, and reflecting upon how people would perceive her if she made a complaint."
Even if Bruce Lehrmann won, he wouldn't have 'won' much
If Justice Lee had found in favour of Bruce Lehrmann, he would have been entitled to damages.
In fact, the court had previously heard evidence that the supposed payout was a key motivation for Mr Lehrmann bringing the action.
In a text message to his then-girlfriend on the night The Project interview aired, Mr Lehrmann said he would be "up for millions as defamation".
But Justice Lee rejected that.
"If it had been necessary to assess damages in favour of Mr Lehrmann, the appropriate and rational relationship between the actual harm sustained and the damages awarded would lead to total damages of $20,000," Justice Lee said.
A now-viral idiom from Justice Lee really summed it up:
"Having escaped the lions' den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat."
Bruce Lehrmann lied about not giving material to Seven Network
When Mr Lehrmann faced criminal trial for sexual assault in the ACT Supreme Court in 2022, he was provided with material that both parties could have used to mount their arguments.
The criminal trial was abandoned due to juror misconduct, leaving no findings against him, but Mr Lehrmann still had access to that material.
It included extended security camera vision of Mr Lehrmann and Ms Higgins going through security at Parliament House on the night, an AFP statement of facts, and thousands of text messages between Ms Higgins and an ex-boyfriend.
This material was not meant to be made public, because it was never used in open court. This is known as the Hearne v Street obligation.
However, it aired on the Seven Network's exclusive Spotlight interview with Mr Lehrmann.
Mr Lehrmann repeatedly gave evidence in his defamation case, on at least four occasions, that he did not provide Seven with anything more than an interview.
However, his evidence was challenged during an eleventh-hour reopening of the defamation case two weeks ago, when former Spotlight producer Taylor Auerbach testified that Mr Lehrmann had provided the program's executive producer, Mark Llewellyn, with the sensitive material.
The Seven Network has denied this.
Justice Lee said he was "satisfied" Mr Lehrmann made false representations to the court about at least part of this material.
"In the absence of any other explanation, the inescapable conclusion is that Mr Lehrmann provided access to Mr Llewellyn to the relevant photographs," he said.
"His representations and evidence to the contrary were false to his knowledge on a serious matter, and this conclusion fortifies my assessment as to his general credit."
While conceding he was "not some sort of roving law enforcement official", Justice Lee left the door open for another court to pursue the alleged breach of the Hearne v Street obligation.
Network Ten wouldn't have been protected by its second defence
While so much attention has focused on Ms Higgins's allegation, Justice Lee had more to say about the forum in which it was aired.
He was critical of the team behind the episode of The Project, including Lisa Wilkinson.
Justice Lee agreed with Mr Lehrmann's lawyers that Network Ten should have made more effort to contact him for a response.
The court heard senior producer Angus Llewellyn sent an email to Mr Lehrmann's Hotmail account three days prior to the broadcast, which Mr Lehrmann claimed he rarely checked.
"He was not living the life of a hermit, he was working for a public relations firm in Sydney," Justice Lee said.
The judge also suggested there should have been more work to investigate the precise detail of Ms Higgins's claims.
"Mr Llewellyn, like Ms Wilkinson, started from the premise that what Ms Higgins said about her allegations was necessarily true," Justice Lee said.
"[They] indicated their willingness to assist in the political use of the allegations."
His findings mean that, had Network Ten failed to prove the substantial truth of the allegation, it would not have been protected by the qualified privilege defence.