Bruce Lehrmann denies leaking Brittany Higgins’ private phone records as Lisa Wilkinson’s lawyers lash Channel 7 report

Bruce Lehrmann has weighed in on the scandal surrounding the Brittany Higgins leaks, while Lisa Wilkinson has accused Channel 7 of painting her as a “villain”.

Bruce Lehrmann has told the Federal Court that he is not responsible for the leaking of Brittany Higgins private phone records that were obtained under subpoena during the criminal trial.

An extraordinary legal whodunit has emerged in the wake of the leak of a six-hour tape of Ms Wilkinson, Ms Higgins, her partner David Sharaz and executive producer Angus Llewllyn giving their “unplugged” views on high profile figures.

It was first broadcast by Channel 7 on Sunday night as part of an interview special with Mr Lehrmann and includes Ms Wilkinson describing former Defence Minister Linda Reynolds as “a nobody” and an “idiot”, and saying “who is this f***king woman.”

Separately, thousands of text messages on Brittany Higgins’ iPhone have been leaked to Channel 7 and other media outlets.

The material was not tendered during the trial and was leaked by persons unknown to Channel 7, The Daily Mail, Sky News and The Australian newspaper.

Bruce Lehrmann has denied leaking Brittany Higgins’ private phone records.

In the Federal Court this morning, Barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC, acting for Ms Wilkinson and Matt Collins KC for Channel Ten, have highlighted the barrage of media stories in recent days including Ms Higgins’ private texts.

They asked for the Federal Court to act to compel Mr Lehrmann to answer questions about whether he was involved in the leaks at a hearing today before Justice Michael Lee - a request he denied.

“All we seek to do, and it’s relevant to credit and it’s relevant to damages, is ask the applicant (Mr Lehrmann) if he had anything to do with it,’’ Ms Chrysanthou SC said.

“That’s the purpose of the interrogatories.”

An interrogatory is a written question on a relevant issue, submitted by one of the parties in a civil proceeding to the other before the trial, requiring a written response, usually on oath.

“Someone is engaging in a concerted campaign to produce misleading material to the media in order to impugn the respondents and witnesses that the respondents could call in the defence to these proceedings in November,’’ Ms Chrysanthou said.

But Matthew Richardson SC told the court Mr Lehrmann was not involved and Channel 10 had “no idea” who was leaking the material.

“In correspondence last night, and in the written submissions provided to your honour, the allegation was made, it was the obvious inference that my client had provided materials to Channel 7 even in breach of his Harman obligations. He absolutely denies that. It is a grave and serious allegation. It’s aggravating the damages, in this case.”

A six-hour tape involving Brittany Higgins (above) and Lisa Wilkinson was aired for the first time alongside previously unseen CCTV footage during a Channel 7 broadcast. Picture: 7 News

Justice Lee ultimately declined to order the interrogatories in the form proposed.

Ms Chrysanthou SC said the Channel 7 broadcast was an attempt to target Lisa Wilkinson and her producer and “to paint them as villains”.

“There was no attempt to approach my client prior to that broadcast, to ask her questions about what was happening in that audio recording,’’ she said.

“We’ve written to Channel 7 about this. And we have said that this has led us to infer that you have no interest in our client’s version and the whole purpose of the broadcast was just to impugn her. But also to infer you didn’t want us to know that you have this audio recording, because that would have led to an injunction application.”

Dr Collins KC said Mr Lehrmann had told Channel 7 he wanted to “light some fires” and had complained he had “enough s*** shoved down his throat.”

“Mr Lehrmann intends to run a public campaign against Ms. Higgins,’’ Dr Collins KC said.

“He’s a man who says he has nothing to lose. He says he’s acting contrary to legal advice. This is a trial coming before your honour in a relatively few short months, measured in weeks rather than months, the publicity of the last few days in our respectful submission, can only have been calculated to put pressure on witnesses, not to cooperate with the respondents.”

Brittany Higgins with partner David Sharaz. Picture: brittanyhiggins/Instagram

Mr Lehrmann is suing over the original Channel 10 report that did not name him in relation to Ms Higgins rape allegation. He was never convicted and maintains his innocence.

“You’ve got an application by which you seek to interrogate the applicant in relation to these matters. I understand that and no doubt you’ll come to that,’’ Justice Lee said.

“But you either have a reasonable basis for asserting that the applicant is in breach of an obligation or you don’t. If you do...there is an appropriate mechanism in which to deal with that.

“If you don’t, I don’t see what I am supposed to do. If you believe that there is conduct that’s being engaged in which you can prove was calculated to interfere with the proper administration, bring application.”

At one point, Justice Lee also complained that some court documents did not offer Ms Higgins and others honorifics.

“Everyone doesn’t seem to refer to people by their surnames in this case, they’re like barristers or convicted criminals or professional cricketers. But I think they’re entitled.”

The leaked texts include private discussions with Ms Wilkinson’s husband Peter FitzSimons over a $325,000 book deal and Mr Sharaz describing Prime Minister Scott Morrison as “c**t.”

Mr Lehrmann has denied being behind the leak. Picture: 7 News

The leaked videotape was originally obtained when Channel 10 was subpoenaed in the criminal trial and was never made available as part of a Board of Inquiry into the trial.

Any lawyer who obtained the leaked material through the criminal trial or the board of inquiry would be precluded from providing it to others under what is known as the Harman undertaking.

The rule in Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280 (Harman) precludes a litigant from making collateral use of documents obtained through the court’s compulsory processes such as subpoenas.

The rule states: “[w]here one party to litigation is compelled, either by reason of a rule of court, or by reason of a specific order of the court, or otherwise, to disclose documents or information, the party obtaining the disclosure cannot, without the leave of the court, use it for any purpose other than that for which it was given unless it is received into evidence”.

According to the Daily Mail, which has obtained the audio, it records that Ms Higgins drank a mimosa and Mr Sharaz a gin and tonic as they discussed the forthcoming episode.