CONTENT WARNING: This article discusses sexual assault.
The “trial of the decade” is over; Bruce Lehrmann has lost. In a two-and-a-half-hour summary, Justice Michael Lee found the former Liberal party staffer did, on the balance of probabilities, rape his colleague Brittany Higgins in Parliament House during the early hours of March 23, 2019 — and that Network 10 and Lisa Wilkinson could defend his defamation claim.
The trial has been one of the most closely watched in recent memory, second only to the Ben Roberts-Smith defamation trial. It saw Lehrmann take the stand for the first time, as the details of that fateful night were put under the microscope. Network Ten argued a truth defence, and over the course of weeks of testimony, Lee found they were indeed telling the truth.
It is now likely Lehrmann will be required to pay costs, which could stretch into the millions.
Below, the key moments you need to know from Justice Michael Lee’s judgement.
1. Justice Michael Lee found that Bruce Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins
This was a defamation trial, but at its core it was a trial to determine if The Project and Lisa Wilkinson told the truth when they aired Higgins’ story of being raped by a then-unnamed man inside Parliament House.
Brittany Higgins has always maintained she was raped by Bruce Lehrmann, who in turn has always maintained they did not have sexual intercourse whatsoever. The criminal trial was aborted due to juror misconduct, with a second trial unable to go ahead due to concerns for Higgins’ welfare.
Justice Lee finding that Lehrmann did, in fact, rape Higgins “on the balance” of probabilities is the closest we’re ever going to have to a conclusion.
“Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins,” Lee said. “I hasten to stress; this is a finding on the balance of probabilities.” This finding should not be misconstrued or mischaracterised as a finding that I can exclude all reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence.”
As this was a civil trial, not a criminal one, Lee did not need to find Lehrmann guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Bruce Lehrmann was drunk and cheating on his girlfriend the night of the rape.
The events of March 23, 2019 have been under the spotlight for years. In his judgement, Lee laid out the events of that night. “Put bluntly, he was a 23-year-old male cheating on his girlfriend, having just ‘hooked up’ with a woman he found sexually attractive,” Lee said. “Human experience suggests what he then wanted to happen is not exactly shrouded in mystery.”
3. Brittany Higgins was put in a “potentially difficult position”.
Although they were both Liberal party staffers at the time of the rape, Lehrmann was more senior to Higgins. Lee said this put her in a “very different and potentially more difficult position” when it came to his advances. “She wanted to get on with him and, moreover, was keen to interact — even at the expense of abandoning her date,” Lee said.
He added that there was “difficult to tell” how keen Higgins was to go back to Parliament House, but that “even if she found the prospect a tad unwelcome, going back was understandable, as like many professionals the subject of an advance by a work colleague with more power, Ms Higgins did not want to alienate someone she perceived could be of real importance to her career”.
Lehrmann told Higgins he had “some whisky to show” her, according to Lee, and whether in her inebriated state she thought this was simply a pretext for more intimacy, or that she was going back for just a drink, is “difficult to tell (and in the end, does not really matter)”.
4. Justice Michael Lee confirmed Brittany Higgins ‘proven to be a victim of sexual assault’
On the balance of probabilities, Justice Lee found that Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins.
“As a result of the inconclusive criminal trial, Mr Lehrmann remains a man who has not been convicted of any offence, but he has now been found, by the civil standard of proof, to have engaged in a great wrong. It follows Ms Higgins has been proven to be a victim of sexual assault,” the judgement reads.
5. Justice Michael Lee ‘satisfied’ that Bruce Lehrmamnn lied
Although he made it clear he did not think Lehrmann was a “compulsive liar”, Lee did say he was “satisfied” that Bruce Lehrmann, in important respects, told “deliberate lies”.
“I would not accept anything he said except where it amounted to an admission, accorded with the inherent probabilities, or was corroborated by a contemporaneous document or a witness whose evidence I accept,” he said.
One such example was in whether or not he found Higgins “attractive”.
“This attraction informed a number of his later actions, more over his denial of this fact was unwary as it contradicted what he said on the Spotlight programme,” Lee shared.
When he was confronted with this inconsistency, Lehrmann said it was like a general attraction that he would feel to anyone in the courtroom.
“When confronted about the inconsistency, his attempt to explain it in a way by suggesting the attraction he felt for Ms Higgins was just like the attraction I can feel to anyone else in the courtroom, irrespective of gender was just as disconcerting as it was unconvincing,” Lee continued.
6. Bruce Lehrmann “behaved disgracefully” prior to and during the trial
Lee did not mince his words when it came to Bruce Lehrmann’s conduct. “Mr Lehrmann behaved disgracefully.” he said. “He defended the criminal charge on a false basis, lied to police, and then allowed that lie to go uncorrected before the jury. He instructed his unwitting and hence blameless senior counsel to cross-examine a complainant of sexual assault, in two legal proceedings, on a knowingly false premise.”
7. If Bruce Lehrmann had won, the damages would have amounted to a mere $20,000.
Lehrmann’s conduct — not just in raping Higgins, but in defending the charges, telling “his side” to the media, and then suing for defamation — means his reputational damage was mostly done by him and him alone, not The Project, Lee found.
“The consequence of all this is that the actual damage proven to be occasioned to Mr Lehrmann’s reputation by the broadcast could only be slight in respect of the defamatory publications unsuccessfully defended, because he is only entitled to be compensated for the reputation he deserves,” Lee said.
If it had been necessary to access damages in favour to Lehrmann, the “appropriate and rational relationship between the actual harm sustained and the damage” means he would have been awarded just $20,000.
Lisa Wilkinson’s legal fees alone amounted to more than $700,000 last year, with her costs now likely to be north of $1 million.
8. Bruce Lehrmann’s mess is of his own making.
With regards to the legal system, Bruce Lehrmann received a free kick. He pled not guilty in a trial that was aborted due to juror misconduct. A retrial did not go ahead due to concerns over Higgins’ welfare. (Remember: only the accuser needs to be subjected to the dehumanising experience of cross-examination; Lehrmann was able to get through the criminal trial without saying a word.)
However, despite being able to effectively say for the rest of his life that he wasn’t a rapist and no court had found him one, he launched a defamation trial. And lost.
“Having escaped the lions’ den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat,” Lee quipped.
“As a result of the inconclusive criminal trial, Mr Lehrmann remains a man who has not been convicted of any offence, but he has now been found, by the civil standard of proof, to have engaged in a great wrong. It follows Ms Higgins has been proven to be a victim of sexual assault.”
9. Justice Michael Lee found that The Project did identify Bruce Lehrmann
It’s a long time ago now, but if you’ll recall, The Project’s original interview with Brittany Higgins did not identify Lehrmann by name. However, Lee found that Lehrmann was “was reasonably identified by persons with special knowledge”.
“Each of the identification witnesses identified Mr Lehrmann with the knowledge they had acquired by working in Parliament, or by reason of being a friend or family acquaintance,” the judgement reads.
10. Justice Michael Lee says Wilkinson was let down by her legal counsel before her Logies speech
Lisa Wilkinson’s infamous 2022 Gold Logie acceptance speech caused the then-upcoming criminal trial to be delayed. She was crucified for it. The ACT director of public prosecutions, Shane Drumgold SC, told an independent inquiry he had warned Wilkinson of these exact consequences days earlier.
However, Wilkinson said her speech was cleared by Network 10’s senior legal council Tasha Smithies. And in his judgement, Lee gave Smithies a rebuke for her advice, saying she “should have known better”.
“The conduct of Network 10 thought its employees in procuring Ms Wilkinson to give the speech in the form it was given, for the reason it was given, was grossly improper and unjustifiable,” he said.
Following the Federal Court’s verdict, Lisa Wilkinson shared a brief statement outside of court.
“I sincerely hope that this judgement gives strength to women around the country,” the journalist shared.
“I am also so grateful to have had the benefit of my independent legal team led by Sue Chrysanthou whose expertise and wise counsel have been a source of ongoing strength to me for the last 14 months. Thank you.
“Throughout every step of this process, I have been surrounded by the love of my wonderful family as well as incredibly supportive friends and colleagues. I can never thank them enough.
“I also want to say how grateful I am to all the generous members of the public who have approached me almost every single day to express, often through tears, their unwavering support. Thanks very much.”
Lee has ordered that parties file submissions on costs by April 22.
Image source: Getty Images / Lisa Maree Williams and Lachlan Hodson / Supplied
Help is available.
- If you require immediate assistance, please call 000.
- If you’d like to speak to someone about sexual violence, please call the 1800 Respect hotline on 1800 737 732 or chat online.
- Under 25? You can reach Kids Helpline at 1800 55 1800 or chat online.
