The biggest bombshell claims in the Bruce Lehrmann trial
A look at the 10 biggest claims and evidence in the Bruce Lehrmann trial as a Federal Court judge gets ready to hand down his decision within hours.
Monday marks D-Day for Bruce Lehrmann and Network 10 following their blockbuster defamation trial in the Federal Court.
Mr Lehrmann sued Network 10 and journalist Lisa Wilkinson over The Project’s February 2021 interview with Brittany Higgins in which she alleged she was raped by a colleague in Parliament House.
He has denied having any sexual contact with Ms Higgins and alleged he was defamed and identified by the broadcast, despite not being named.
Thousands of court-watchers tuned in every day over the explosive five-week trial, with the Federal Court’s YouTube channel recording its highest amount of viewers during Ms Higgins’ evidence on November 30 - 124,445.
We look at the 10 biggest bombshell claims and pieces of evidence heard by the court during the high-stakes case.
BRITTANY LASHES OUT
Brittany Higgins appeared as a star witness for Network 10 and during her testimony she had a series of heated exchanges with Mr Lehrmann’s barrister Steven Whybrow.
She conceded she gave incorrect testimony at Mr Lehrmann’s criminal trial about the state of her dress when she woke up, saying she was mistaken but denied she lied.
There were tense moments in the court as Mr Whybrow asserted she had lied when she made the sexual assault allegations.
“I suggest to you (the dress) was a significant matter, it immediately follows your alleged sexual assault,” Mr Whybrow said.
“As I was being raped it wasn’t my primary concern where my dress was,” Ms Higgins replied, becoming visibly emotional.
“Your evidence was that your dress was on when you were raped and then you passed out,” Mr Whybrow said.
“I was deeply more concerned about the penis in my vagina that I didn’t want there,” Ms Higgins said.
“It wasn’t about my dress. I wasn’t concerned about my dress in that moment.”
THE LIP READER
One of the most colourful witnesses to give evidence at the trial was lip reading expert Tim Reedy, who was flown from the UK to Sydney to appear before the court,
After studying CCTV, he gave evidence about what he alleged was said between Ms Higgins and Mr Lehrmann at a bar on the night of the alleged sexual assault.
He wrote in a report that he believed Brittany Higgins was being plied with alcohol and at one point Mr Lehrmann told her “drink that all now”.
In his report, Mr Reedy, who is profoundly deaf and a self-taught lip-reader, made a note describing a portion of the CCTV.
“Man is lining up drinks, plying the woman with alcohol,” Mr Reedy’s note read.
Mr Whybrow asked Mr Reedy how he came to write the note.
“Because this was a party and everyone’s having fun,” Mr Reedy said.
“What stuck out was Ms Higgins was drinking and she’s literally in the corner of a table, and there are some drinks there, on the table, and they are pushed in her direction.
“And this suggests she had been plied by alcohol.”
LEHRMANN LIED ABOUT COMING BACK TO PARLIAMENT
During his evidence, Mr Lehrmann said that he returned to Parliament House to collect his keys and spent about 30 to 40 minutes working on Question Time briefs relating to the French submarine deal before departing.
Upon arriving at Parliament House, he pressed the intercom and told security: “Oh, hi mate. Bruce Lehrmann here with Minister Linda Reynolds. I’ve been requested to pick up some documents. I’ve forgotten my pass.”
Mr Lehrmann, during his evidence, acknowledged that explanation to the security guard was a lie.
He said he thought security would tell him to “bugger off and come back next week” had he told them he needed to retrieve his keys.
In his submissions to the court, Network 10’s barrister Dr Matt Collins described this as “no trivial lie” because it implicated Senator Reynolds.
As well, Ten’s barristers pointed out that Mr Lehrmann had told Senator Reynolds’ chief of staff, Fiona Brown, during a meeting on March 26 that he returned to Parliament to “drink whiskey”.
He told the court that had he told Ms Brown that he was there to make notes on Question Time briefs, he was worried about the “flow-on effects” and security implications.
THE DRESS
Mr Lehrmann’s barristers attacked Ms Higgins’ credibility, including over her assertions about her dress being scrunched up around her waist when she woke up.
Under cross examination from Mr Whybrow SC, Ms Higgins said she “absolutely” accepted that she gave incorrect evidence during Mr Lehrmann’s trial in the ACT Supreme Court in October 2022.
The court heard that in a transcript of her draft book she wrote that after the alleged sexual assault, she woke up with her dress scrunched up, hanging loosely around her waist.
However that is contradicted by the evidence of a security guard, given during Mr Lehrmann’s criminal trial, who said Ms Higgins was found naked in the minister’s office.
“In relation to this account that you’ve written in your draft book, you accept that what you’re indicating there was that you woke up with your dress around your midsection,” Mr Whybrow said.
“The confidence with which I wrote that was incorrect,” Ms Higgins said.
The court heard she made similar claims during a five-hour pre-interview chat with Ms Wilkinson and a The Project producer.
“Are you telling his honour that those recollections were not reliable,” Mr Whybrow asked.
“That’s true, I thought it was on my waist, I was incorrect, I didn’t know where the dress was,” Ms Higgins said.
“I thought it was on my waist because I don’t remember putting it on the next day. So I deduced it was still on.”
LISA’S LEGAL FEES
While the lawsuit pitted Bruce Lehrmann against Network 10 and Lisa Wilkinson, it also exposed a rift between the broadcaster and the star journalist.
Ms Wilkinson has scored a major win over Ten when the court ruled the network would have to cover the costs of Lisa’s legal fees.
Network 10 initially accepted it was liable for “reasonable” legal fees incurred by Ms Wilkinson, after she elected to hire her own legal counsel, experienced defamation barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC.
Her legal fees amounted to more than $700,000 last year and her costs are now likely more than $1 million.
Network 10 subsequently refused to pay the costs after claiming it was unnecessary for Ms Wilkinson to obtain separate legal representation.
For months, the journalist has fought to compel her employer to pay the million-dollar legal fees she amassed while defending the lawsuit brought by Bruce Lehrmann.
Who ultimately pays Ms Wilkinson’s legal fees will be determined by the outcome of Justice Michael Lee’s judgment.
If Mr Lehrmann loses, he could be liable for Network 10 and Ms Wilkinson’s legal costs.
The court heard the cracks in the bond between Ms Wilkinson and Network 10 began to show after Ms Wilkinson delivered her now-infamous speech at the 2022 Logies.
As she accepted a silver Logie for her interview with Ms Higgins, the journalist gave an address in which she praised the younger woman for her “unwavering courage”.
She made the remarks just eight days before the original start date for Mr Lehrmann’s ACT criminal trial.
The speech attracted intense criticism and caused ACT Chief Justice Lucy McCallum to delay the trial for three months.
Ms Wilkinson told the Federal Court she felt she had been left to shoulder the blame on her own.
“(Network 10) asked me to make that speech (and) they had been involved in legalling that speech,” she said.
“But I was the one accused … of derailing the rape case.
“All the blame was falling on me.”
SEVEN PAID LEHRMANN’S RENT
The court heard Mr Lehrmann took part in two interviews with Channel 7’s Spotlight in 2023.
And in return Seven paid his rent from June 2023 until June 2024.
“You don’t know how much you were paid?” Ms Wilkinson’s barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC asked.
“I’ve never seen that,” Mr Lehrmann said.
“So you don’t know how much was paid by Seven for your accommodation for 12 months?” Ms Chrysanthou asked.
“Network Seven handle the accommodation arrangements,” Mr Lehrmann said.
Details of the deal were revealed in court documents released by the Federal Court.
According to the agreement, Mr Lehrmann would provide exclusive interviews to Seven relating to “his experience of the criminal charge brought against him” and “his life following the ACT criminal proceedings, including his Federal Court defamation actions against the media”.
It says that in exchange, “Seven will provide the interviewee 12 months accommodation at a residence to be agreed by Seven and the interviewee.”
According to an invoice that was released by the court, Seven made a booking for a North Sydney residence from April 13 2023 until April 12 this year.
The invoice included $4000 for a fortnight’s rent from June 8 to June 22.
LISA KNOWS “HOW POLITICS WORKS”
There were tense moments in the court during Lisa Wilkinson’s evidence as she asserted that there had been a political “cover up” of Ms Higgins allegations.
Ms Wilkinson made the claim as she pointed out that two members of then-Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s office, including his top advisor Yaron Finkelstein, had showed up in Linda Reynolds’ office two days after the allegations were made.
She also said Ms Higgins had received a phone call from a senior member of Mr Morrison’s staff “on politically-sensitive days for the Liberal Party”.
Mr Lehrmann’s barrister Matthew Richardson asserted that Ms Higgins had no knowledge of what was said in the meeting between the two members of the Prime Minister’s staff and Senator Reynolds’ chief of staff Fiona Brown.
“No but she had never seen them in the office before,” Ms Wilkinson said.
“She’d only been working for Reynolds, how long, three weeks?” Mr Richardson asked.
“At that stage,” Ms Wilkinson said.
“I want to suggest to you it was completely unreasonable for you to draw the inference that meant something sinister,” Mr Richardson said.
“I know how politics works, Mr Richardson,” Ms Wilkinson replied.
“That’s your answer?” Mr Richardson asked.
“Yes it is,” Ms Wilkinson said.
“I THINK I COULD WIN”
When Ms Higgins, her partner David Sharaz, Ms Wilkinson and producer Angus Llewellyn met in a Sydney hotel room in January 2021 for a pre-production meeting, they discussed the possibility of Bruce Lehrmann one day launching defamation proceedings.
The meeting was eight months before Mr Lehrmann was even charged by police and over a year before his ACT Supreme Court trial, which collapsed due to juror misconduct.
Mr Lehrmann pleaded not guilty to one charge of sexual intercourse without consent and the charge was ultimately dropped.
Mr Lehrmann later sued Network 10 and Ms Wilkinson, alleging he was defamed by Ms Higgins’ The Project interview.
“I would love to have the court case on civil,” Ms Higgins said.
“If he wants to go after me, like on a civil basis, I think, on the balance of probabilities, I think I could win.
“I think, if the onus of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, I think that would be different. I don’t think I could win that.”
Ms Higgins was referring to the onus of proof in different courts - in a criminal trial an allegation must be proven by the prosecution “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
Civil matters - including defamation - are decided “on the balance of probabilities”.
BRITTANY’S $2.4 MILLION
Brittany Higgins was handed more than $2.4m to settle her personal injury claim with the Commonwealth, court documents revealed during the trial.
The court heard Ms Higgins was paid compensation after she in 2022 settled her personal injury claim with the Commonwealth following mediation.
During her evidence, she said she believed the gross settlement was for approximately $2.3m and after paying legal fees and taxes, she received $1.9m.
“I received 1.9 million … I think around 2.3 (million) was the amount and then there were taxes and the lawyer took some,” Ms Higgins said
The deed of settlement and release reveals that she received $400,000 for hurt, distress and humiliation, $1.48m for her loss of earning capacity, $220,000 for medical expenses, $100,000 for “past and future domestic assistance” and $245,000 for her legal costs.
THE PRODUCER
The biggest twist in the case came just days out from Justice Michael Lee’s scheduled judgment in the case.
Network 10 was granted leave to re-open its case to hear bombshell evidence from former Spotlight producer Taylor Auerbach, who was instrumental in wooing Mr Lehrmann to give two exclusive interviews with Seven’s flagship current affairs program.
Mr Auerbach had claimed that he and the Spotlight team were given a number of documents from Mr Lehrmann’s criminal trial, including the Cellebrite extraction report of texts between Ms Higgins and her former boyfriend, Ben Dillaway.
The former Seven producer said he was also provided with photographs of messages between Ms Higgins and Peter FitzSimons on a laptop, in which he said Spotlight executive producer Mark Llewellyn’s reflection could be seen.
Mr Auerbach also said that Spotlight paid for dinners, accommodation and golf trips for Mr Lehrmann and reimbursed the former Liberal staffer for his expenses for drugs and prostitutes.
Mr Auerbach told the court that Mr Lehrmann invoiced Seven for the costs of prostitutes and cocaine during a visit to Sydney in January 2023.
“I recall that monies paid by the applicant for illicit drugs and prostitutes that evening at the Meriton and the following evening at a brothel in Surry Hills were reimbursed to the applicant (Mr Lehrmann) by Seven ... via invoice,” Mr Auerbach said in an affidavit.
The court heard that Mr Lehrmann issued an invoice to Seven which included the costs of a hire car, purchases made at a Sydney bar and $750 worth of “pre-production expenses”.
“What’s your understanding of the matter to which the $750 charge for pre-production expenses relates?” Network 10’s barrister Dr Matt Collins asked.
“Mr Lehrmann’s expenditure on cocaine and prostitutes,” Mr Auerbach said.
“And what’s the basis for that understanding?” Dr Collins asked.
“That he indicated to me he needed to replenish his bank account after the bender,” Mr Auerbach said.
Mr Auerbach said he believed the invoice from Mr Lehrmann was paid by Seven.
The network has denied covering costs for illegal drug use and prostitutes.
Mr Lehrmann’s barrister Matthew Richardson argued it was implausible that $750 would cover the costs of two nights of drugs and prostitutes.
CFMEU officials fined for unlawful conduct
Two CFMEU officials have been fined by the Federal Court for unlawful conduct at a Brisbane construction site.
CFMEU officials fined for unlawful conduct
Two CFMEU officials have been fined by the Federal Court for unlawful conduct at a Brisbane construction site.