‘Bruce Lehrmann perverted the course of justice’: Lisa Wilkinson rebuts appeal bid
Lisa Wilkinson says there was nothing unfair about Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation trial and his lie to police about having sex with Brittany Higgins was a bid to ‘pervert the course of justice’.
Lisa Wilkinson has asked the Federal Court to toss out Bruce Lehrmann’s appeal over the finding that he raped Brittany Higgins, arguing he suffered no unfairness in his defamation case.
Lawyers for Ms Wilkinson filed submissions to the court late on Monday also arguing that Mr Lehrmann had lied to police when he denied having sex with Ms Higgins, “which amounted to perverting the course of justice”.
Federal Court judge Michael Lee last year found on the balance of probabilities that Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins in the office of Senator Linda Reynolds in 2019 and dismissed his defamation case against Ms Wilkinson and Network Ten.
Lehrmann is appealing against Justice Lee’s judgment and maintains his innocence.
Lehrmann’s lawyer, Zali Burrows – who did not appear for him in the defamation trial – claims that he was denied procedural fairness because the case pleaded by Ten was very different from the case found by Justice Lee.
Ms Burrows argues Ten claimed the case involved “forceful sexual intercourse” but the case found by Justice Lee involved no force, and that Ten had claimed Mr Lehrmann knew Ms Higgins was too intoxicated to consent, but the judge made no such finding.
“The credit of Ms Higgins and Mr Lehrmann, the two key protagonists in this case, was the central issue which ultimately animated the findings of fact made by His Honour,” she said.
However, Justice Lee “derived his own case theory as to the facts, creating the difficulty that his case theory had never been advanced by Ms Higgins in her evidence … and nor was it ever put to Mr Lehrmann in cross examination.”
Wilkinson’s lawyers, Sue Chrysanthou SC and Barry Dean, claim Ms Burrows’ arguments are “entirely misconceived” and that Wilkinson’s defence had put forward during the trial either that Lehrmann knew Ms Higgins had not consented or was reckless as to whether she consented or not.
There could be no denial of fairness because Lehrmann had denied having any sexual contact or similar intimate interaction with Ms Higgins when they returned to Parliament House.
Ten’s barrister Matthew Collins had asked Lehrmann: “Did Ms Higgins, at any time, consent to having sexual intercourse with you?”
Lehrmann responded: “I didn’t get consent because I didn’t have sexual intercourse”.
Wilkinson’s lawyers in their submission say that during the trial Lehrmann’s lawyers were of the view that it was unfair to ask him about consent because he had denied sexual intercourse but “they now apparently take the view that it was unfair to him to not have asked him specific questions about consent”.
“Given his emphatic denials of sexual intercourse or any similar intimate interaction whatsoever, there was no lack of fairness in not putting to Mr Lehrmann that he was reckless to Ms Higgins’ consent when he had had sexual intercourse with her.”
Wilkinson had pleaded various elements that Lehrmann’s lawyers had not challenged, her lawyers said. These included that during an interview with police Lehrmann had falsely denied having sexual intercourse with Ms Higgins, “which amounted to perverting the course of justice”.
Wilkinson had put Lehrmann on notice of this by filing her defence and it was an alternative plea that was not based on an account given by Ms Higgins
“Despite having the opportunity to reply to these submissions, Mr Lehrmann’s lawyers made no complaint that they were taken by surprise or prejudiced by them,” the submission said.
Lehrmann’s appeal is expected to be heard by the Full Court of the Federal Court in a three-day hearing beginning on August 20.
The whistleblower, her $30m claim and the affair rumour she didn’t think was true
Super Retail has for the first time revealed how it will defend toxic workplace allegations, claiming a key whistleblower was herself accused of bullying and dismissed rumours of an affair she later relied on for a potential $30m claim.
‘We will be putting him to sleep’: TerraCom’s six-year whistleblower nightmare
The day a man who had worked at a Queensland coal mine for just five weeks was sacked, he made extraordinary allegations about fraud. Here’s how the TerraCom court saga started.