Deaf lip reader to give evidence in Bruce Lehrmann, Network 10 defamation case

A deaf British lip reader will tell court what Bruce Lehrmann and Brittany Higgins said to each other on the night the former Liberal staffer says she was raped.

Bruce Lehrmann arrives at Federal Court for the defamation case against Network 10 and Lisa Wilkinson. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Jeremy Piper

A deaf British lip reader will tell the Federal Court what he believes Bruce Lehrmann and Brittany Higgins were saying to each other at a pub on the night the ­former Liberal staffer says she was raped in Parliament House, despite Mr Lehrmann’s vigorous ­attempts to have the expert evidence thrown out.

Tim Reedy, who became deaf aged four due to meningitis, will provide an expert report that will likely show Mr Lehrmann encouraging Ms Higgins to consume more alcohol at The Dock hotel and telling her to “drink that all now” on the night of the alleged rape.

Mr Lehrmann is suing Network 10 and presenter Lisa Wilkinson over her interview with Ms Higgins on The Project in 2021, detailing accu­sations that Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins on March 23, 2019, but not naming him as the ­alleged attacker.

He has consistently denied raping Ms Higgins.

The Federal Court on Friday heard arguments from Mr Lehrmann’s barrister, Nicholas Olson, as to why Mr Reedy’s evidence should not be tendered to the court, including that he would not be able to lip read an Australian accent.

“Probably hasn’t heard an Australian accent before, let alone a drunk Australian,” Mr Olson said.

He challenged the report on the basis of Mr Reedy’s perceived lack of expertise, and said he was “doubtful” that lip reading was a “body of specialised knowledge”.

“The proposed expert’s evidence is that he has been deaf since the age of four and he was fitted with a hearing aid,” he said.

Justice Michael Lee interjected: “Sounds very much like an experience to me.”

Mr Olson continued: “He taught himself to lip read and he uses that as a major part of his daily communication, it’s not apparent from the proposed expert’s description of his skills, to what extent he relies on the hearing aid and to what extent he relies on lip reading.”

The court heard Mr Reedy has experience as a “forensic lip reader” having assisted in the investigation of an extra marital affair, and helped with inquiries for British tabloid newspapers and the UK’s National Health Service.

“In my submission that’s described at such a high level of generality that Your Honour couldn’t make anything of (it),” Mr Olson said. He also argued Mr Reedy would mostly be used to analysing one’s speech in real life, not “pixelated” CCTV footage.

Lisa Wilkinson arrives at the Federal Court with her barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Jeremy Piper

Network 10, meanwhile, argued the report was admissible and said Mr Reedy had extensive experience in lip reading, adding there were “advantages” to the lip reader being able to analyse CCTV footage, rather than doing it face-to-face.

“He explains the advantages to the way in which he does it, and the advantages he has from being able to slow down tapes in large pixelation and repeatedly watch things,” barrister Matthew Collins KC said.

Dr Collins also took issue with Mr Olson’s submission that the lip reader would struggle to analyse the footage due to a disparity between British and Australian accents. “It’s a surprising proposition that an English lip-reading expert who has been deaf since age four would have any particular difficulty with an Australian accent,” Dr Collins said.

“It’s exotic, but not that exotic.”

Justice Lee ultimately ruled Mr Reedy’s evidence would be admissible, saying it was clear that specialised knowledge “may exist which is not scientific”.

“This is not an expert opinion of great complexity,” he said. “It involves someone with specialised knowledge looking intently at a video, sometimes repeatedly, and forming conclusions as to what is.”

Justice Lee said in the end he would be the one to make an “independent judgment” as to the facts of the case. “I think I am in a position from reading the report to form a rational view as to the basis upon which Mr Reedy has forged his opinions and allowing me the ability to assess their reliability,” he said.

On the first day of the trial, Dr Collins said he planned to tender Mr Reedy’s report, and said he ­intended to propose to Mr Lehrmann what he was saying at different points on the night of the alleged rape.

While cross-examining Mr Lehrmann, Dr Collins put questions to him about his conversations at the Dock, and showed the court CCTV footage of Mr Lehrmann amassing three drinks in front of Ms Higgins.

Dr Collins asked Mr Lehrmann whether he remembered saying “all hers, all hers” while moving the drinks. Dr Collins also suggested Mr Lehrmann told Ms Higgins to “drink that all now” while referring to an alcoholic drink, to which she responded: “I don’t want to.”

He then suggested Mr Lehrmann said: “Drink it all. You can’t leave that. Come on, you’re not leaving that.” He suggested Ms Higgins skolled the drink and Mr Lehrmann said: “Well done.”

Mr Lehrmann denied this dialogue took place.

The court also heard from Detective Senior Constable Sarah Harman who said she received “pushback” when trying to obtain CCTV from Parliament House after the alleged rape occurred.

Constable Harman said she made multiple attempts to access the footage, but eventually told she would not be able to obtain it until after the federal election.

“I can’t recall the exact date of the election, but they said you’re not going to have it,” she said. “So I sort of took that and went OK.”

Constable Harman said she repeatedly escalated the issue and made great attempts to access the footage. “I never encountered such pushback on obtaining CCTV, and it was incredibly frustrating for me,” she said.

The trial continues.