Bruce Lehrmann’s evidence ‘unsatisfactory’ but he is not a ‘compulsive liar’: legal team
In written submissions made public on Friday, Bruce Lehrmann’s legal team concede there are issues with his evidence, but that it doesn’t make him a ‘compulsive liar’.
Bruce Lehrmann’s legal team has admitted its client’s evidence in his defamation trial against Network Ten was “unsatisfactory” but says it did not mean he raped or had any sexual relations with Brittany Higgins, while launching fresh attacks on the creditability of Ms Higgins and journalist Lisa Wilkinson.
Ten’s lawyers also addressed, in summary documents provided to the court, “inconsistencies” in Ms Higgins’ evidence, but concluded her testimony of the alleged sexual assault in Parliament House was “raw and compelling”.
Wilkinson’s counsel argued that if judge Michael Lee found Mr Lehrmann had lied about any facts, then the damages awarded to him should be reduced. “Such abominable conduct should not be encouraged or rewarded,” her legal team led by Sue Chrysanthou SC said.
Mr Lehrmann is suing Network Ten and Wilkinson over her interview with former political staffer Ms Higgins on The Project in 2021, which detailed accusations that Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins in March, 2019. It did not name him as the alleged attacker.
Mr Lehrmann has consistently denied raping or having any sexual relations with Ms Higgins.
The defamation hearing closed just before Christmas, and written submissions outlining each parties’ case were made public on Friday.
Mr Lehrmann’s legal team, including Steven Whybrow SC and Matthew Richardson SC, accepted his evidence was “in a number of respects unsatisfactory”, but said to call him a “compulsive liar”, as Network Ten did, “significantly and unfairly overstated” the problems with his evidence.
“Mr Lehrmann was a witness in our submission whose evidence on the core matters about what actually occurred within APH remained unshaken and consistent,” they said referring to Australia’s Parliament House.
His lawyers claimed most of Ten’s attacks on his creditability were “in relation to … peripheral issues”.
For example, they argued: “Whether Mr Lehrmann made a comment that he found the objectively attractive Ms Higgins attractive can provide no rational support for the proposition that he may have violently raped her – in their workplace – 3 weeks later.”
His lawyers’ said some evidence, such as the phone calls he made in early April 2019 was “undoubtably unsatisfactory” but did not mean what he said happened on his return to Parliament House should automatically be rejected.
“He appeared to be trying to work out where Dr (Matthew) Collins was going in his questions and not get caught out on matters that he knew could be objectively established. Each of these were with respect peripheral issues. His evidence in these respects was dissembling guarded, inconsistent, and lacking credibility,” the submissions said.
Mr Lehrmann again took aim at the credit of Ms Higgins, Ten producer Angus Llewellyn and Wilkinson.
His lawyers described Ms Higgins as “fundamentally dishonest” and said she “lied repeatedly, in multiple forums and despite having legal moral or ethical obligations to tell the truth”.
Wilkinson, on the other hand, had “such an unreasonable state of mind concerning the program that the court would have reservations about placing much reliance on her evidence”.
“Also critical on the question of credit was the belief Ms Wilkinson had developed that Ms Brown and Senator Reynolds were part of a wicked systematic cover-up … There was simply no evidence before her to justify such an extreme belief, and it speaks poorly of Ms Wilkinson’s objectivity and insight that she took that view.”
Ten, whose legal team was led by Matthew Collins SC, said Ms Higgins’ inconsistencies were a result of “a combination of the effects of trauma and alcohol on memory, the passage of time, limited access to information and Ms Higgins’ attempts to reconcile her independent memories with information of which she has subsequently become aware”.
On the other hand, Ten attacked Mr Lehrmann’s “endemic” lies as “a consciousness of guilt”.
That is, because he told the lies after the alleged incident on March 23, 2019, and they related “to the fact and circumstances of his attendance at Parliament House out of hours”.
Ms Wilkinson’s legal team also took aim at senator Linda Reynolds’ chief of staff Fiona Brown, who while giving evidence in the defamation trial, said Ms Higgins never made an allegation of rape to her.
“Having heard Ms Brown’s evidence (over some 5 hours) and observed her demeanour and attitude towards this issue, it is open to the Court to form the view that Ms Brown is not being dishonest about this issue, rather she completely lacks ordinary human insight into such matters,” Ms Wilkinson’s lawyers argued.
Justice Lee has reserved his decision for a later date.
More Coverage
Weak government response means anti-Semites are winning
The Albanese government must now assume Australia’s Jewish community is under active terrorist attack and set up an Operation Sovereign Borders-type multi-agency campaign to combat the deadly rise of anti-Semitism.
Rise of local terror demands better from our leaders
The scourge of anti-Semitism in Australia has become a runaway train that now demands a radically escalated counter-terror mindset from federal and state governments, police and spy agencies.