Seven network facing crisis over Bruce Lehrmann programs

Seven West executives held ­crisis talks ahead of the media company’s appearance in court, with Taylor Auerbach also set to take the stand on Thursday.

Taylor Auerbach, pictured on Wednesday, and Bruce Lehrmann. Picture: NCA NewsWire / John Appleyard / David Swift

The Seven Network is facing a reputational crisis as it prepares to be grilled in the Federal Court over allegations it destroyed evidence that should have been produced during Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation trial, with disaffected former Spotlight producer Taylor Auerbach also set to take the stand on Thursday.

Seven West executives held ­crisis talks on Wednesday ahead of the media company’s appearance in court, with claims that network insiders are asking who knew what in the lead-up to the Spotlight program securing its exclusive interview with Mr Lehrmann, and suggestions that the future of the show could be in doubt.

Judge Michael Lee ordered the defamation case be reopened after an eleventh-hour application by the Ten Network, based on claims in affidavits by Auerbach that Seven covered the costs of prostitutes for Mr Lehrmann, as well as illicit drugs and a $361 tomahawk steak, as part of its efforts to secure exclusive interview rights.

The perks included a $401 round of golf in Tasmania, a $450 dinner at Spice Temple in the Sydney CBD and a $518 dinner at Potts Point institution Franca.

In a series of affidavits released by the court on Wednesday, Auerbach claimed Mr Lehrmann supplied Seven with confidential documents, texts and recordings provided to him by police during his criminal trial for the alleged rape of former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins in Parliament House.

Auerbach claims Mr Lehrmann handed Seven the AFP statement of facts from the rape trial, along with text messages between Ms Higgins, her former boyfriend Ben Dillaway and Lisa Wilkinson’s husband, Peter Fitz­Simons.

Mr Lehrmann appeared in an episode of Seven’s current affairs program last June that contained material not tendered in court.

The former Liberal staffer has denied breaching the “Harman undertaking”, which dictates that material produced in a court case cannot be used for other purposes.

Mr Lehrmann has testified in the defamation case that he did not give the Spotlight program “information, documents, film, video, photographs, items and ­assistance reasonably requested” as stipulated in his contract but only an interview.

His barrister, Matthew Richardson SC, told the court his client was not involved in leaking the material.

“The allegation was made, it was the obvious inference that my client had provided materials to Channel 7 even in breach of his Harman obligations. He absolutely denies that. It is a grave and serious allegation. It’s aggravating the damages, in this case.”

Auerbach also alleged in the affidavits that he deleted material after the show aired at the request of Seven executives and lawyers, a request that if made after sub­poenas were issued could constitute a contempt of court.

Seven said it strongly rejected “the false and misleading claims relating to the broadcast of mat­erial in the Spotlight program”.

“Seven has never revealed its source or sources and has no intention of doing so. Seven notes Mr Lehrmann’s court testimony last year that he was not the source,” a spokesperson said.

An as-yet-unnamed senior executive from Seven (“the Proper Officer”) is expected to take the stand on Thursday to answer questions on whether the network provided all the material it was required to, under the terms of two subpoenas issued by the court.

In June 2023, Auerbach claims, Spotlight executive producer Mark Llewellyn told him: “I’ve just gotten off the phone to lawyers. I’ve decided to wipe all contact that I’ve had with Bruce and documents he gave me. I cannot tell you to do the same but it might be a good idea.”

In his affidavit, Auerbach says: “I followed this direction and immediately proceeded to delete any communications in relation to (Mr Lehrmann) I could see on my phone.”

Auerbach claims that in the days after the Spotlight program went to air, he received a phone call from a lawyer working at a firm that does work for Seven who told him: “I’ve heard that Ten and Lisa are not very happy about the broadcast and might come after us. It might be a good idea to have a look at everything, especially the raw interview tapes.”

Auerbach says he “understood” that this meant he should delete any materials that could be damaging for Seven, and then he deleted anything he could find on his computer and phone.

He says he was aware that a subpoena had been issued to Seven by Ten but was not aware of the terms of the subpoena.

None of these allegations has been put to Llewellyn or to Seven lawyers in court.

Wilkinson’s barrister, Sue Chrysanthou SC, submitted that both Mr Lehrmann and Seven had not been “entirely honest” about the benefits that the ­former Liberal staffer received in ­exchange for exclusive interviews rights.

“In addition to the one year of rental that Mr Lehrmann was found to have had the benefit of, it would appear that there was months more of rental paid for by Network Seven in Mr Auerbach’s name,” Ms Chrysanthou said.

“It’s quite a complicated set of ­financial affairs but it appears to, if accepted, demonstrate that neither Network Seven, who were ­required to respond to two subpoenas, nor Mr Lehrmann have been entirely honest about the ­financial benefits that Mr Lehrmann received.

“On the evidence, there were ­directions given that documents be destroyed.”

On Tuesday, Justice Lee asked the parties whether it was contended that there had been a failure by Seven to comply with subpoenas, in which case he would relist those subpoenas to examine whether or not the network had properly complied with the subpoena.

Ms Chrysanthou pointed out that Auerbach had alleged that ­directions were given that documents be destroyed “so it may well be there has been proper compliance with a subpoena”.

However, Ten’s lawyers had written to Seven after the Spotlight program aired asking the network to preserve the material, so there was “a timing issue as to when, on Mr Auerbach’s evidence, directions in relation to destruction of material actually occurred”.

“We would prefer to know for the purposes of our dispute with Mr Lehrmann what they had, not what they have now.”

Justice Lee ordered that the two subpoenas previously ­addressed to Seven, on June 2 and August 17 last year, be returnable at 9.30am on Thursday and that “the Proper Officer of Seven Network appear on the return of the subpoenas”.

Auerbach is expected to take the stand at 2.15pm on Thursday.