Judge says no Morrison in Bruce Lehrmann rape trial

An “egregious” speech by the former PM was used as a reason to permanently delay the court case.

SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA - NewsWire Photos NOVEMBER 18, 2021: Prime Minister Scott Morrison pictured with MP Dr Fiona Martin during a press conference at the Tooheys Brewery in Lidcombe.Picture: NCA NewsWire / Damian Shaw

An “egregious” speech by the former PM was used as a reason to permanently delay the trial. 

The judge overseeing the trial of Bruce Lehrmann for the rape of Brittany Higgins denied a stay on proceedings because most of the publicity surrounding the high profile case occurred before he had been charged. 

ACT Supreme Court Chief Justice Lucy McCallum on Wednesday released her decision to deny a stay and take down order of media reports brought by Lehrmann’s lawyers in March 2022. 

Higgins has alleged Lehrmann raped her on the couch in the office of their then boss Senator Linda Reynolds – then the Defence Industry Minister – after a night out drinking with colleagues in the early hours of March 23 in 2019. 

Stories on the allegations of rape were published on February 15 in 2021. 

Lehrmann was charged with sexual intercourse without consent about six months later in August 2021, to which he has pleaded not guilty. 

Justice McCallum said since Lehrmann had been charged, “the most intense aspect” of media reporting was on the discussion and criticism on how Higgins’ allegations were treated within Parliament House. 

“Much of the publicity surrounding the complainant’s allegation came at a time before the accused had been charged or even named,” she said. 

“There was a further spate of discussion at the time the accused was charged and again at the time of the Prime Minister’s apology.

“Since the time the accused was charged, by far the most intense aspect of the publicity has been the discussion and criticism of the way in which the complaint was treated within Parliament House.” 

Higgins’ allegations in part triggered the March 4 Justice rally at Parliament House that attracted thousands of people and unleashed what was wildly termed a reckoning against the mistreatment of women in politics. 

Lehrmann’s trial began on October 4 and the jury deliberating on Lehrmann’s guilt will continue on Thursday.

Lehrmann sat in court on Wednesday with his hands clasped in his lap as Justice McCallum adjourned the jury. 

Higgins was not present.

Bruce Lehrmann leaves the Magistrates Court in Canberra after the jury failed again to deliver a decision on the case against him.

Under ACT law, charges of sexual intercourse without consent must be tried by a jury. 

Lehrmann’s lawyers argued that the pre-trial publicity had “enhanced” Higgins who’d sought to discuss her allegations of rape with the assistance of the media and the backing of powerful people including then Prime Minister Scott Morrison. 

Lehrmann’s lawyers said Morrison’s apology to Higgins, made on February 8 after the release of the Jenkins review into the workplace culture inside Parliament House, was “particularly egregious as it imputed the accused with guilt of the offence or at least implicitly assumed the truthfulness of the complaint.”

“The accused submitted that the effect has been to elevate the complainant to a status she should not have for the purpose of the accused’s trial,” Justice McCallum said. 

“He submitted that the case is unique because the complainant ‘walks into Court with an aura about her’ and that the problem this creates is incurable.”

Justice McCallum said she accepted that most of the reporting around the Higgins case “assumes the complainant’s truthfulness” but said the matter was not “beyond rescue” and therefore did not justify a stay on proceedings. 

“The case for a temporary stay is not compelling,” she said. 

“As explained by the Director in his submissions, the most damaging material was published at an early stage of the investigation and well before the accused had been named or charged.” 

Justice McCallum said seeking to regulate media reports on criminal proceedings through suppression and non-publication orders was a “pious hope”, especially because of the presence of the internet and social media.