‘It’s not cricket’: Blow to Lisa Wilkinson’s defence in Bruce Lehrmann trial

Lisa Wilkinson has spent more than $700K hiring her own legal team, only to have her ‘sharpest knife in the drawer’ blunted already.

Lisa Wilkinson (right) and defamation lawyer Sue Chrysanthou SC arrive at Federal Court in Sydney. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Dylan Coker

Lisa Wilkinson has spent more than $700,000 hiring her own legal team, only to be told that her high-profile silk, Sue Chrysanthou SC, will not be allowed to cross-examine Bruce Lehrmann in the defamation case he has brought against her and Network 10.

Justice Michael Lee’s ruling on Monday is a major blow to Wilkinson. It’s also a blow to the 9000 people watching the case unfold on YouTube that Chrysanthou will not be bringing her blunt style to the dissection of the at-times hapless Lehrmann, already stumbling under the more surgical technique of Network 10’s barrister, Matt Collins KC.

As one pundit on a reddit legal thread observed, “Lehrmann is a Christmas ham just waiting to be carved and Chrysanthou is one of the sharpest knives in the drawer”.

But Justice Lee has been openly sceptical about the prospect of a double-headed interrogation for weeks, noting ominously on Friday that the details of the carve-up between Collins and Chrysanthou “may not be a secret between counsel, but it’s a secret to me”.

Under the rough division of labour proposed, Collins was to handle the truth defence – attempting to prove that Lehrmann did rape Brittany Higgins – while Chrysanthou would deal with questions of identification and qualified privilege, including whether Wilkinson had properly fulfilled her obligations as a journalist in preparing the story.

Chrysanthou argued that the proceedings directly affected Wilkinson’s reputation and future ability to work, and that although still employed by Network 10, her client has not been on air since around the time of the discontinued criminal proceedings against Lehrmann.

Wilkinson claimed Lehrmann had engaged in a media campaign against her, and Chrysanthou wanted to cross-examine him on matters that 10 could not.

Wilkinson is understood to have hired Chrysanthou ­because she felt the network was more interested in defending itself than her. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Dylan Coker

“That is why, in order to avoid any oppressiveness, Dr Collins and I have ensured in preparing for trial that there is no topic overlap,” Chrysanthou argued.

But Justice Lee wasn’t happy.

“Ms Chrysanthou, I have cross-examined one or two people in the past, so I think I understand,” he told her.

“One is not to approach cross-examination in any case – let alone a case like this – like it’s a social cricket match where a batsman ­retires at 50 to give someone else a go.”

This wasn’t a complex class action or corporate or scientific case, he said. “The issues are of critical importance to the parties, are of public interest and are hotly contested, but whatever else might be said of this proceeding, it is not ­legally or factually complex by the standards of modern litigation.

“The fact remains, Channel Ten and Ms Wilkinson have identical role interests on the vast bulk of issues which form the basis of the defence, particularly when it comes to the evidence of Mr Lehrmann,” Justice Lee added, although he left the door open to some cross examination by Chrysanthou on a case-by-case basis.

“I recognise that Ms Wilkinson wishes to advance her individual interests and she will be given every opportunity to do so including asking questions of any witness in circumstances where it is necessary for her counsel to do so. This does not extend, however, to duplicative cross-examination.”

Wilkinson is understood to have hired Chrysanthou ­because she felt the network was more interested in defending itself than her. The Project host’s concerns began when Network 10 hired defamation specialist Collins – without her knowledge or input – just hours after he appeared on Seven’s Sunrise program saying her Logies speech had the “tendency to ­interfere with the administration of justice”.

The King’s Counsel may find himself in an interesting position defending the reasonableness of Wilkinson’s conduct in giving the speech after having publicly called it “ill-advised”.

But on Monday, Collins was earning his fee, extracting more concessions from Lehrmann that he lied: to his then-boss Linda Reynolds that he had “retreated to Queensland” when in fact he was still in Canberra; and again during an interview with the Seven Network’s Spotlight program about the reason for his late night visit to Parliament House, blaming a “hastily arranged interview” for not telling the truth.

Collins also appeared to damage Lehrmann’s claim that Network 10 and Wilkinson failed in their obligation to act reasonably towards him. Part of his case is The Project didn’t give him a chance to respond to the allegations and that he hadn’t realised that he was the unnamed alleged rapist in an article earlier that day by Samantha Maiden on news.com.au.

On Monday, Lehrmann told Collins that when he read the Maiden article he didn’t think it had anything to do with him, only to be reminded by Collins that in March, at a preliminary hearing in the defamation case, he had said he immediately recognised that the article was about him.

When Collins called Lehrmann out on the inconsistency, Lehrmann doubled down.

Collins: “On the 16th of March 2023 you said unequivocally … that when you read the article, the Samantha Maiden article, you immediately knew it was about you.”

And later, Collins said: “When I’ve put exactly the same question to you before His Honour not 10 minutes ago, you gave a completely irreconcilable (answer).”

Lehrmann said he had listened to the identifying features in the article that Collins indicated on Monday would be key to Lehrmann recognising himself as the alleged assailant, and said when listening to those features he “didn’t consider” it to be him.

Lehrmann admitted that by the end of that day, after The Project interview aired, he had “spiralled” and sought out cocaine to help.

The Federal Court earlier this year was shown text messages between Lehrmann and his friend John McGowan around 10pm, saying “need bags”. Asked about the exchange by Collins on Monday, Lehrmann told the court: “I was in a bad place.”

But the biggest unexploded bomb in the case – for both sides – continues to be a woman who has asked to be excused from giving evidence. Senator Reynolds’ then-chief of staff Fiona Brown called in both Lehrmann and Higgins soon after the incident about what had occurred – and took contemporaneous notes.

Collins put to Lehrmann that Brown “was asking you about what you had done in the 40 or so minutes during which you had access to the ministerial suite between about 1.48am and about 2.30am on the 23rd of March”.

“I just don’t recall specifics,” Lehrmann replied.

Lehrmann has always denied he had any contact with Higgins after they walked through the door of the ministerial suite, saying “I went left and she went right”, but Collins asked him if Brown had queried what state Higgins was in when he left the ministerial suite at 2.30am.

Collins: “Do you deny saying to Ms Brown … that when you left Parliament House at about 2.30 in the morning … that Ms Higgins was happy?”

Lehrmann: “No, that didn’t happen.”

Collins: “In the conversation, did you say to Ms Brown … that at the time you left parliament you had to go home, and Ms Higgins said ‘bye see you next week’ and you said ‘yes’?”

Lehrmann: “Oh no, I don’t recall that happening.”

Justice Lee will rule next week on whether Brown will be required to take the stand. The respected public servant was criticised by Higgins on The Project for allegedly failing to help her, a claim Brown vehemently denies.

Her evidence could explode the scenarios both sides are asking Justice Lee to accept as the truth.