Bruce Lehrmann not entitled to appeal ‘devastating’ findings: Ten lawyers

The ruling that found Bruce Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins left him as ‘Australia’s most hated man’ and was so devastating he will be unable to find a job locally or overseas, the Federal Court has heard.

Bruce Lehrmann leaving the Federal Court of Australia.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles.

Bruce Lehrmann’s bid to overturn judge Michael Lee’s ruling that he raped Brittany Higgins in parliament house relies on “hopeless” and “exceptionally weak” grounds, Network 10’s lawyers say.

Lawyers for the network along with those for presenter Lisa Wilkinson also claim the former Liberal staffer “had his day in court” and is not entitled to appeal Justice Lee’s “devastating” findings.

It comes as Mr Lehrmann’s lawyer argues the judgment left him as “Australia’s most hated man” and was so devastating he is unable to secure regular income, and may have no choice but to turn to “Only Fans or something silly like that” to get a pay cheque.

Mr Lehrmann’s lawyer Zali Burrows returned to Full Court of the Federal Court on Monday morning to overturn Justice Lee’s ruling that on the balance of probabilities, he raped his former colleague Ms ­Higgins in the then ministerial office of senator Linda Reynolds in March 2019.

Justice Lee ruled that Ten and presenter Lisa Wilkinson did not defame Mr Lehrmann when airing an interview with Ms Higgins about the rape on The Project in 2021.

The court was previously told that Mr Lehrmann – now on Centre­link – could be forced into bankruptcy if he couldn’t meet the costs order. Mr Lehrmann argues that it is in the public interest that the appeal proceeds.

Mr Lehrmann was ordered to pay Ten $2m for their legal costs.

The network has now demanded that he pay a $200,000 surety to secure its legal costs if his appeal is not successful.

Lawyer for Bruce Lehrmann, Zali Burrows. Picture: NewsWire / Nikki Short

Ten’s barrister Matthew Collins on Monday told judge Wendy Abraham Mr Lehrmann relies on two “hopeless” grounds of appeal, and two that are “extremely weak”.

Mr Lehrmann, in his notice of appeal, says Justice Lee made findings that were neither advanced by Ten and Wilkinson nor put to him in cross-examination, amounting to a denial of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The case pleaded by Ten involved “forceful sexual intercourse” but the case found proved by Justice Lee involved no force, Mr Lehrmann submits. However both Ten and Ms Wilkinson reject this characterisation.

Sue Chrysanthou, acting for Ms Wilkinson, said “at no point” should Mr Lehrmann have been shocked by the respondent’s pleadings in the case.

“At no point was there any complaint about how we put the case or that it took the appellant by surprise, or that it somehow departed from the pleadings,” she said.

Dr Collins also told the court Mr Lehrmann has “no capacity” to pay the $2 million order made against him to satisfy the network’s legal fees, let alone the $200,000 surety for costs. As such, Dr Collins said his incapacity to pay the fees “stultify” the appeal.

The court heard Mr Lehrmann had been personally served a bankruptcy notice in early August.

“Mr Lehrmann has had his day in court,” Dr Collins said. “More than a day in court, 26 days in court in circumstances where factual findings went against him and no novel or important questions of law arise.”

But Mr Lehrmann’s solicitor, Ms Burrows, told the court Ten and Ms Wilkinson are engaged in “bullying tactics” but requesting the $200,000 security, because they know it would put an end to the proceedings as Mr Lehrmann would be unable to honour it.

“This application for security for costs is pretty much a bullying tactic just to hard-fist it and shut down this appeal because they know my client will nto be able to come up with $200,000 at all,” she said.

Dr Collins said there was “nothing improper” about Ten trying to secure costs in the appeal matter.

She told the court Justice Lee’s judgment had left Mr Lehrmann as “Australia’s most hated man” - a reputation that will follow him into any employment locally or overseas.

“The whole country out there and even potentially overseas and on the internet he will be labelled a rapist and people don’t know the difference between a criminal standard and a civil standard,” she said.

She said Ten was “one of the many contributors” to Mr Lehrmann’s dire financial situation.

“It’s a bit rich in asking him to put up $200,000 when they are one of the contributors as to why he is pretty much unemployable,” she said. “The only shot he’d probably ever (have) in making money is going on Only Fans or something silly like that.”

The parties were also split on whether it is in the “public interest” for Mr Lehrmann to appeal the matter.

Dr Collins submitted that just because the findings are “devastating” for Mr Lehrmann, does not mean he should be entitled to an appeal.

“Of course, the findings are devastating to Mr Lehrmann, but that doesn’t mean that the reversal of those findings serves some broader public interest,” he said.

“He was conducted in the full glare of the entire nation. He was very ably represented and His Honour has made findings at the end of the day of the kind that civil courts make every day of the week based on the evidence before His Honour.”

Mr Lehrmann has also challenged Justice Lee’s ruling that he would have been awarded just $20,000 in damages had he won as “manifestly in­adequate” for a false charge of rape and that he would have been en­titled to either a seven-figure sum or at least hundreds of thousands dollars.

Mr Lehrmann argues that it was partly Ten’s conduct in labelling him a rapist that has led to his inability to pay costs.

Justice Abraham has reserved her judgment determining whether the matter will proceed.