The TV interviews that undermined Lehrmann’s bid for anonymity

A Supreme Court judge has found Bruce Lehrmann’s bid to avoid being identified in the Toowoomba rape case on mental health grounds was undermined by his comments in several national TV interviews.

Lehrmann’s lawyers sought a judicial review of Toowoomba Magistrate Clare Kelly’s decision to allow him to be identified this month under new Queensland laws that remove previous restrictions on reporting rape cases before the committal stage.

Bruce Lehrmann interviews on the Seven Network’s Spotlight program.Credit: Seven Network

For months, the media could only refer to a “high-profile man” charged with raping a woman in October 2021.

Lehrmann’s lawyers provided evidence of his mental health in the early months of the Brittany Higgins case – the trial was aborted and Lehrmann has maintained his innocence – and said he remained in intermittent contact with a doctor interstate.

In his written judgment, Justice Peter Applegarth noted that a solicitor acting for media organisations, including this masthead, had brought to Kelly’s attention three media interviews given by Lehrmann this year.

Two were broadcast on Channel Seven’s Spotlight program in June and August (Seven did not join the legal effort to name him) while another aired on Sky News in August.

This was after Lehrmann was charged with the Toowoomba rape, and after the state government had introduced a bill to lift the reporting restriction.

His doctor had in early 2023 encouraged him to seek out medical support closer to home.

“Counsel for the media entities referred to parts of the media interviews in which the applicant [Lehrmann] said that he was suicidal for ‘a little while there in the start of 2021’. He described an episode in March 2021 as one of his lowest points, but also a turning point,” Applegarth wrote.

Applegarth noted the media organisations also referred to three defamation proceedings that Lehrmann had brought against media outlets in the knowledge it would attract more publicity.

“On Channel Seven’s Spotlight program on 4 June 2023, the applicant stated ‘Let’s light some fires’ and later said ‘Everything needs to be out there, in the open, so people can assess this for what it is’.”

Before delivering his judgment, Applegarth remarked in court that he hoped Seven had “paid him or the solicitor a lot of money ... for the consequences it’s had on this application, if nothing else”. He noted that Lehrmann’s doctor did not relay any concerns Lehrmann had raised over the impact of the interviews on his mental health.

Lehrmann’s lawyers pointed to his doctor’s opinion that the interviews “should not be misconstrued as demonstrating his full recovery, or that his mental health is of no real concern,” rather that he had periods of severe depression following particular stress points.

In his judgment, Applegarth said Kelly never dismissed the doctor’s opinion, but rightly observed that Lehrmann’s interviews were inconsistent with the contention he had been relentlessly pursued by the media and deserved special protection.

Applegarth also noted that Lehrmann had not engaged the services of a local GP nor sought or obtained medication to treat his psychological state this year.

“Rather than lower his public profile and retreat from the media spotlight, the applicant chose for whatever reason to appear more than once on national television and revisit events that had triggered his mental illness in early 2021,” Applegarth wrote.

“He seemingly felt well enough to engage with sections of the national media, and to deal with any resulting further coverage he received from the media outlets he appeared on and other media that followed up on his high-profile appearances.”

If you or anyone you know needs support, call Lifeline 131 114, or Beyond Blue 1300 224 636.