Main players savaged in Bruce Lehrmann-Network Ten, Lisa Wilkinson judgment … except for one

Justice Michael Lee has found in favour of Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson.

The verdict is in – and none of the major players has escaped Justice Michael Lee’s brutal judgment unscathed.

On the balance of probabilities, Bruce Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins.

Lehrmann had sex with Higgins, who did not consent. And he was recklessly indifferent to whether she was consenting or not.

Lehrmann was not convicted of rape at his criminal trial but having brought a defamation case he must now wear the consequences.

As Lee observed: “Having escaped the lion’s den Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of coming back for his hat.”

But Lee has used his 324 page judgment to lay bare unpleasant truths about almost all the participants in this squalid affair.

Higgins and Lehrmann were both liars.

Lehrmann was a wild and undirected liar with “Walter Mitty imaginings” while Higgins was an organised liar whose deceit was targeted and calculated to explain her actions in a better light.

Former Ten presenter Lisa Wilkinson displayed a “lack of candour in the witness box”, Lee found.

Ten’s in-house lawyer, Tasha Smithies, was eviscerated for failing to recognise her error in advising Wilkinson she could give the Logies speech – and then doubling down on it.

But one witness was entirely vindicated – Fiona Brown, the staffer Higgins claimed she had told of the rape and who she accused of helping cover up the crime – allegations Lee forcefully rejected.

Indeed the most significant aspect of the judgment, apart from the finding of rape, was that there was no political cover up.

Lee has skewered any notion that this was some kind of conspiracy – and flayed Ten for having tried to pretend during the defamation hearings that it had been anything else.

But first, let’s look at the findings on truth.

Lehrmann’s stated reasons for ending up in Parliament House that night were always nonsensical, Lee found. It was an “elaborate fancy”.

This was a 23-year-old man cheating on his girlfriend with a woman he found attractive and knew was drunk: “There was one thing on his mind and it had nothing to do with French submarines.”

Lehrmann’s attempt to deny he found her attractive was “as disconcerting as it was unconvincing”.

The former Liberal staffer had “hitherto demonstrated no outward signs of being a workaholic”, Lee observed caustically.

Lehrmann’s claim that he had only scribbled on post it notes during his supposed work on defence-related matters that night – explaining why he never accessed his computer at the time – was too convenient by half.

And why hadn’t he checked on Higgins when he left?

Higgins’ account, by contrast, although containing falsehoods, was not inherently implausible.

Lee said he was confident she was very drunk and that Lehrmann was aware of that.

Sexual intercourse did take place and Lehrmann ejaculated. Higgins was “passive” and did not voice any resistance during the act but she had not consented to sex.

Lehrmann may not have known whether she had consented but was recklessly indifferent to whether she had.

“I consider it more likely than not in those early hours after a long night of conviviality and drinking and having successfully brought Ms Higgins back to a secluded place, Mr Lehrmann was hell bent on having sex with a woman he found sexually attractive.”

Lee’s judgment could have begun and ended there. All he needed to find was that Ten and Wilkinson had succeeded in their truth defence.

But having sat through months of evidence revealing the highly dubious journalistic standards displayed by Ten and Wilkinson, Lee was not going to let them off the hook.

Their conduct towards Lehrmann fell short of the standard reasonableness, he found.

The cover up allegation was objectively short on facts, but long on speculation and internal inconsistencies.

Their approach to the story was corrupted from the beginning by their failure to adequately question Higgins’ story. They never questioned the underlying truth of anything Higgins alleged. Even a failure by police to get access to CCTV from the night became evidence of political interference.

The cover-up claim was an invention by Higgins, who only much later “crafted a narrative accusing others of putting up roadblocks and forcing her two years earlier of having to choose between her career and seeking justice by making and pursuing a complaint”.

Some of the inconsistencies in Higgins early accounts may have been the result of being under stress, but she was “decidedly uninterested in pursuing a formal complaint, trying to develop an account she could rationalise and perceived made her look better in the eyes of others”.

In the febrile atmosphere of 2021 many instinctively believe what Higgins asserted about the rape and the subsequent cover up of the crime in advance of any trial where the rape allegation would be examined, Lee observed.

That resulted in Higgins being feted by many – a celebrated speaker at a mass demonstration; becoming nominated for awards receiving invitations to make a nationally televised speech at the National Press Club; and a book deal worth $325,000.

Lee savaged Wilkinson’s “willingness to double down on an allegation that Ms Brown and Senator Reynolds were active participants in a systemic cover up of alleged criminal conduct when on any fair review of the available material, the basis for such a grave allegation is infirm”.

That was even taking into consideration Higgins claims to Wilkinson – repeated 82 times in one session alone – that she felt things were “weird”. This demonstrated Wilkinson’s willingness to engage in speculation or to “read between the lines”.

By the end of the trial Wilkinson was emphasising her reliance on the investigative work of her producers, and that she had simply read a pre-prepared script, which caused Lee to “approach her testimony with some caution”.

Wilkinson’s claim during the hearings that The Project interview was not critical of Brown was “utterly unsustainable,” Lee found.

“From the first moment the cover up component was promoted and recognised as the most important part of the narrative.”

Lee’s findings are comprehensive and exhaustive.

They should be the final word of this whole mess.