As Brittany Higgins prepares to give evidence, Lisa Wilkinson’s lawyer spars with judge

As Brittany Higgins started giving her evidence in Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation case, Lisa Wilkinson’s silk spent more time tangling with the judge than interrogating the witness.

Brittany Higgins arrives at the Supreme Court for the defamation trial brought by Bruce Lehrmann.

It didn’t take long on Tuesday for Lisa Wilkinson’s barrister, Sue Chrysanthou SC, to sidestep a ban imposed on her only the day before on cross-examining Bruce Lehrmann — but the high profile silk seemed to spend more time tangling with the judge than interrogating the former Liberal staffer.

Brittany Higgins began giving her evidence on a day of testy exchanges between Chrysanthou and Justice Michael Lee, who at times appeared to regret not having imposed an outright prohibition on any cross examination by Wilkinson’s brash barrister.

Chrysanthou suggested she should be allowed to cross examine Lehrmann because Ten’s lawyer, Matt Collins KC “has a difficulty” in asking some questions” because of briefs he held with the ABC and News Corp.

“It’s not Mr Lehrmann’s problem about who he (Collins) accepts briefs to act from,” Justice Lee shot back at her, saying it “doesn’t mean you can …have a tag team approach which means someone comes in from the sidelines and ask questions on the top.”

“Your Honour, I’m not coming in from the sidelines”, Chrysanthou retorted.

In the end, Justice Lee agreed Chrysanthou could put limited questions to Lehrmann, because they pertained wholly to his claim against her client and not Network Ten.

But what ensued was a morning of scrappy sparring - with occasional questions to the witness.

Chrysanthou began her cross-examination by having Lehrmann confirm that he still believed Wilkinson “behaved in a high handed and reckless manner in relation to the truth of the allegations against you.”

Lisa Wilkinson (left) and defamation lawyer Sue Chrysanthou SC.

But Justice Lee quickly intervened on her line of questioning, threatening to wind it up if she continued to stray from the restrictions he imposed on Monday.

“I really wish you’d comply with my ruling - I’m allowing you to cross-examine on a limited topic,” Justice Lee said. “It doesn’t mean that you should seek to ask questions beyond the leave that I’ve given, and if you do, then we’ll have to complete the cross examination.”

Chrysanthou had more luck getting access to the settlements Lehrmann reached with News Corp and the ABC over articles they had published on the case, despite again clashing with the judge.

When counsel for News Corp argued that the settlements were confidential, Chrysanthou objected.

“It’s his own client, one of the largest media conglomerates in the country that I’m pretty sure is in favour of freedom of speech and open justice and I find it remarkable that they see it as ..”

“Let’s not have speeches,” Justice Lee interrupted, “let’s just deal with the case before us.”

Chrysanthou then extracted a concession from Lehrmann that the Seven Network, which had denied paying Lehrmann for an interview on its Spotlight program, had in fact paid 12 months of accommodation for him.

“Well yes, for filming in those places, yes,” Lehrmann said.

Lehrmann said he didn’t know how much the deal was worth because “Seven handle the accommodation arrangements.”

Chrysanthou suggested to Lehrmann that he had back-tracked from blaming Wilkinson for his woes in the Spotlight program, and had instead claimed it was ACT chief prosecutor Shane Drumgold who was “the root cause of the trouble” to a number of people, including both himself and Wilkinson.

Chrysanthou: “You thought Mr Drumgold was the person who stuffed up your life, and it was all because of him?”

Lehrmann: “In a large part, yes.”

Chrysanthou: “Your view is that because of him, there’s a very real possibility you may never work again and you’re going to sue the ACT government for millions of dollars?

Lehrmann: “Yes.”

Chrysanthou suggested to Lehrmann that, far from holding Wilkinson responsible for his problems, he now accepted the view of his own barrister, Steven Whybrow SC, that her Logies speech had saved him from conviction, because the delay it caused to the trial helped preparations for his defence.

Whybrow told The Australian earlier this year: “Frankly, if it wasn’t for Lisa Wilkinson’s speech at the Logies, Bruce would probably be in jail. Thank God for that speech.”

Mr Lehrmann told the Spotlight program that Wilkinson’s speech delaying the trial “afforded us the opportunity and time to dig deeper, go down the rabbit holes.”

Chrysanthou suggested “that rather than feel upset ... that (Wilkinson) engaged in conduct that had a prejudicial impact on your criminal trial, you actually think that the delay caused by the way the speech saved you from conviction.”

Lehrmann disagreed, saying he held “more than one view” on the impact of Wilkinson’s speech.

As she began broaching another thorny issue arising from the Spotlight interviews, Chrysanthou began: “Before Your Honour objects …”

Justice Lee told her: “I don’t object, Ms Chrysanthou: I rule”, prompting a rare outburst of laughter in the courtroom.