The past few years raise questions about whether he has ever regarded a decision as a mistake. But assuming that’s an unfair assessment, one wonders at what point former Liberal staffer Bruce Lehrmann began to worry.
He has spent the past week in court, appealing Federal Court Justice Michael Lee’s decision last year which dismissed his defamation case against Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson and found, on the balance of probabilities, that Lehrmann had raped his then-colleague Brittany Higgins. This was the apotheosis of Lehrmann’s time in public life, which amounts to several years spent getting increasingly famous for exclusively bad reasons.
So did he start to feel a twinge of panic when his solicitor Zali Burrows admitted that the representatives of the respondents were better prepared than she was? “I’m just going to try and do the best I can,” she assured the court, before describing her client as “pretty much … a national joke” and “probably Australia’s most hated man”.
Related Article Block Placeholder
Article ID: 1180458
Burrows added that she was representing Lehrmann because, he “couldn’t afford” the barrister he “really wanted”.
The long, long public saga of Lehrmann has always co-mingled tragedy and farce. This week, it careened fully, decisively into farce. Here are the highlights of the lowlights.
Independent. Irreverent. In your inbox
Get the headlines they don’t want you to read. Sign up to Crikey’s free newsletters for fearless reporting, sharp analysis, and a touch of chaos
By continuing, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.
R U OK?
“When Mr Lehrmann leaves the court today, I’m pretty sure no-one in the back of the court or any of the reporters downstairs are going to have anything nice to say to him, and not even ask ‘Are you OK?’” Burrows lamented towards the end of the hearing on Wednesday.
“I’m just going to say the level of vitriol, hatred–”
Justice Craig Colvin, one of three judges presiding, interjected: “Is this a speech, or is this a submission?”
Burrows replied that it was “a submission”, and she would “leave it at that”.
‘I’m struggling to understand… ‘
Burrows argued Lehrmann was not given an opportunity to be questioned about the “type” of rape Justice Lee had found Lehrmann had committed, and that he was “taken by surprise” by Lee’s assessment.
“It was asserted [by The Project] against Mr Lehrmann … that he violently raped, that it was done in a violent nature,” Burrows said on day two of the appeal hearing.
Know something more about this story?
Contact Charlie Lewis securely via Signal using the username @clewis.25. Or use our Tip Off form.
“Whereas His Honour found a totally different case as if it was, using the phrase, a soft rape.
“Regrettably, I don’t like to use the word ‘soft rape’, but I have to use it,” she added. “No doubt the media are going to make fun of that.
“Mr Lehrmann could have conducted the case differently if the version of the case found had been put to Mr Lehrmann at the beginning.”
If you’re confused as to the reasoning here — Lehrmann denies not only that he raped Higgins, but also that there was sex of any kind between them — you’re not alone.
Justice Colvin said “I don’t understand the logic of the submission”, asking how Lehrmann could “have been questioned about the particulars” of an event he denies ever happened.
Related Article Block Placeholder
Article ID: 1171652
“I don’t think His Honour said anything about a violent rape or a soft rape,” another of the three judges, Justice Michael Wigney, said. “He made findings about what happened and what Mr Lehrmann’s state of mind was. I’m struggling to understand by what you mean that it was a new case.”
This distinction — between “violent” and “non-violent” rape — was something Burrows leant heavily on in her written submissions.
Network Ten’s lawyer Dr Matthew Collins put it pretty tersely in his response: “All rape is violent”.
‘Embarrassingly, they’re not here’
On Thursday, Burrows asked to adjourn to the following day after she couldn’t find some documents:
The judge has refused as it would be an “unacceptable burden” on the respondents to come back for a very short amount of time tomorrow, “because you didn’t bring some documents”. There followed a five minute adjournment.
The court has reserved its decision.
