Inside story of Bruce Lehrmann’s failed attempt to remain anonymous

Bruce Lehrmann’s lawyer argued he should stay anonymous to protect him from media scrutiny, months after multiple candid TV interviews, but now he can finally be named.

Bruce Lehrmann’s first public statements to the world were made on prime time national television in a move that ensured his story would be heard by the largest audience possible.

“Let’s light some fires,” he boldly proclaimed.

“I’m not going to shy away from having my say.”

“I could go another hour if we could, there’s going to be heaps to say.”

He boasted that he’d participated in the interviews, including with Channel 7’s Spotlight program and Sky News in June and August, against the advice of his lawyers, telling one journalist “It’s time for a bit of setting the story straight I suppose.”

It was his big moment, the first time he’d had his say after prosecutors announced they would not seek a retrial over allegations he had raped his colleague Brittany Higgins inside Parliament House in 2019.

Bruce Lehrmann speaking with Channel 7. Picture: 7 Spotlight.

But only months later in the courtroom three of the Toowoomba Magistrates Court, his lawyers desperately fought to stop media from revealing what was not mentioned in those ‘tell all’ interviews – that Lehrmann is facing two fresh charges of rape.

On Friday October 13, a top silk spent 30 minutes contrasting those bold statements made on national television with claims made on his behalf that media scrutiny was bad for his mental health.

His lawyers relied in part upon a psychological report that argued he would be at risk of self-harm or suicide if he was named by in connection with the fresh charges, submitting the added media attention would be a significant stressor.

But in dismissing his application, Magistrate Clare Kelly noted Lehrmann had been content to engage in the media interviews just months ago “thereby actively placing himself in the public view”, saying he would have been well aware of the current charges when he did so.

“In my view that is inconsistent with the contention that the media pursuit has been relentless,” she said.

In the application, one of the first brought under Queensland’s new legislation, respected barrister Andrew Hoare and instructing solicitor Rowan King argued Lehrmann’s case on two grounds they submitted would be enlivened by the media scrutiny that would inevitably follow his identification.

Bruce Lehrmann walks out of the supreme court in Sydney. Picture: NCA NewsWire/ Flavio Brancaleone

The first was that the suppression order was necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice.

“ … should my client’s identifying particulars be published, there will inevitably be a link between an earlier aborted trial which did not proceed to verdict which has provoked a public apology to the complainant from the Prime Minister of the time, intense public scrutiny, and a board of inquiry,” Mr Hoare said.

“All of those matters are a matter of public record, all of those matters have been the subject of extensive and broad publication, none of those matters are relevant or admissible in the present proceedings.”

The second ground argued that the order was necessary to protect the safety of a person – namely Lehrmann whom it was argued would be at risk of self-harm or suicide if he was identified as being charged with rape.

The complainant, the Director of Public Prosecutions, and a number of accredited media entities including The Courier-Mail opposed the application during the full-day hearing before Magistrate Kelly.

Brittany Higgins outside court. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Gary Ramage

Esteemed silk Rob Anderson KC, who appeared on behalf of the media, spent much of his oral submissions contrasting Lehrmann’s presentation in those media interviews with the report of clinical psychologist James Brown that opined media scrutiny was a trigger and stressor for his mental health issues.

“The irony of all of this is that a man with no filter, with no self-imposed non-publication order, seeks this court’s assistance to do precisely what himself he is not prepared to do in other circumstances and which is entirely inconsistent with the public’s interest in open justice and with the complainant’s express wishes,” Mr Anderson said.

“A matter of only a couple of months ago … how ready the defendant was to speak his own truth, yet he appears here today asking this court to prevent the public from knowing who he is in relation to the matter that he faces separate charges on, to deny the public access to the open justice which is required by the legislation to be given primacy, and to deny the complainant’s choice that her voice be heard.”

Mr Anderson read from transcripts of interviews Lehrmann had conducted with national media organisations as recently as June and August this year.

“In other words, the broadcasting of his voice from this respect was as broad as it could be,” he said.

Bruce Lehrmann leaves the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal in Canberra. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

“The reason for me taking your honour to these interviews is that there is an incongruity between the applicant’s public presentation and what is said about him by Dr Brown, it’s in part irreconcilable and that is a difficulty that the applicant faces.”

Mr Anderson said Lehrmann had chosen to “stay silent” on the application, giving no direct evidence to the court and relying on the evidence of “others speaking for him”.

“ … he is a man who has been quite content to go public about matters that suit him, yet he is wholly unprepared, it seems, to address this court personally on a matter that he says is so important,” Mr Anderson said.

He read Lehrmann’s own words from the earlier interviews, including the comments: “yeah it’s the classic beware the man with nothing to lose, I’ve got nothing to lose”, and “let’s light some fires”.

“It’s a rather aggressive and public stance demonstrative of the fact that he is willingly prepared to speak openly about his own circumstances, that is evident in his presentation,” Mr Anderson said.

The court heard Lehrmann had also spoken in the interviews about bringing defamation action against media outlets.

Mr Anderson said those civil proceedings would be public and there was a “very real prospect” Lehrmann would have to give evidence to fully advance his case.

“In other words, the defendant has voluntarily placed himself in a very public forum in a way that will inevitably expose and require him to explain in a way that he hasn’t explained to this court today all of his circumstances,” Mr Anderson said.

He said in another comment in a media interview Lehrmann said: “I’m not going to shy away from having my say. I know the lawyers don’t want me to say anything but we’ve had the trial, the charges have been dropped and I think we’ve had enough s*** shoved down our throats. It’s time for a bit of setting the story straight I suppose”.

“His lawyers have told him to stay quiet but he has refused that advice,” Mr Anderson said.

“He wants to be heard – everywhere except here it seems.”

Bruce Lehrmann has been named as the high-profile man charged with two counts of rape.

Mr Anderson read a passage of the psychologist’s report which stated: “In the case of the defendant, the stressors in question are the allegations that were aired in the media in February 2021 and the subsequent events that ensued”.

“In other words, the stressor is the very thing the defendant has spoken so publicly about in three separate broadcasts all published to a very wide audience on television in the last couple of months,” Mr Anderson said.

“He has volunteered himself to an exercise his psychologist records as ‘the stressor’.”

Defence barrister Mr Hoare argued the interviews Lehrmann took part in were about matters that were already “well within the public arena” and did not diminish the serious concerns raised by the psychologist.

“It would not be proper, and I do not think you’re being asked to do so, for your honour in the face of an uncontested report which speaks of a diagnosis and a risk and a grave risk for either the Crown or the respondent the media to assert that your honour can somehow displace the conclusions in the report by an assessment of his presentation in public media,” he said.

“What is put before your honour is a series of transcripts of the applicant’s attempt to publicly answer or vindicate himself in circumstances where he has not had the benefit of a public acquittal, where the complainant has been the subject of a public apology, and where more significantly, the then-prosecutor and head of the ACT DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions Shane Drumgold), after discontinuing the matter, publicly stated his belief in the applicant’s guilt.

“That type of action does not diminish the risk which is identified in the only expert report which is before your honour and it is not, by example, a position where the applicant has reported these proceedings, if that had occurred it would be a very different circumstance.”

Lehrmann, a former Coalition staffer, was charged in December last year with two counts of rape alleged to have been committed on October 9, 2021 against a woman police say he met on a night out in Toowoomba.

It’s understood Lehrmann, 28, was living in Toowoomba at the time of the alleged incident, but has since relocated to another Queensland community.

Despite multiple mentions of the charges in court this year, media have previously been unable to name him as the accused due to legislation that prevented the identification of people charged with prescribed sexual offences until they are committed to stand trial.

That legislation was abolished on October 3 but Lehrmann strenuously fought to maintain his anonymity, securing multiple interim non publication orders while seeking a more permanent order.

However, any orders made under the legislation only delay the inevitable identification of defendants who can still be named in the event that the charges are either committed to trial or dropped.

That inevitability watered down arguments that the order was necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice, with the court hearing he would be able to be named before a potential trial in any event.

Magistrate Kelly said there were many options open to a court to combat pre-trial publicity, including judge-alone trials, directions to juries and sub judice rules.

“In the context of this application, open justice is very much aligned with the public interest,” she said.

“In my view the evidence relied upon doesn’t establish that the order is necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice.

“It is of course accepted the defendant is a person of high public profile by virtue of earlier proceedings which are now concluded and obviously ongoing matters which do involve him.”

Magistrate Kelly said she had taken into account the defendant’s mental health issues.

“I certainly acknowledge there are vulnerabilities to the defendant given the events of the last couple of years and there are matters that are set out in the report of Dr Brown,” she said.

“However the defendant is not currently formally linked in with a formal mental health professional, nor is he prescribed with medication relevant to the treatment of the mental health issues – that is a decision made by the defendant.”

Magistrate Kelly took Lehrmann’s interviews into account in considering the application.

“I also note the defendant himself has engaged with media organisations, thereby actively placing himself in the public view,” she said.

“In my view that is inconsistent with the contention that the media pursuit has been relentless.

“The defendant was obviously aware of current criminal proceedings at the time of giving these interviews and there was also mention in the interviews to other court proceedings being pursued by the defendant.

“In my view the evidence relied upon does not establish that the order is necessary to protect the safety of the defendant.”

After Magistrate Kelly delivered her decision on October 13 refusing the application, Lehrmann’s lawyers immediately secured a further interim non-publication order while they sought a judicial review in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

That review was heard almost two weeks later on October 26, at which time the court dismissed his case, allowing him to be identified for the first time.