What Bruce Lehrmann’s failed defamation case arrangement | The Day-to-day Aus

Yesterday Justice Michael Lee handed down his judgment in the defamation case Bruce lurman brought against journalist Lisa Wilkinson and network 10 finding that it was more likely than not that lurman raped fellow liberal staffer Britney Higgins in 2019 and therefore was not defamed there is nothing simple or straightforward about this case but.

Today tdf fact cheer Lucy tassel and I will endeavor to unpack it yesterday Sam we watched federal court judge Michael Lee hand down a judge in a case that has I think it's safe to say really captured the nation's attention so can you take me back to the start so to do that we have to go back to 2019 and Britney Higgins and Bruce lurman were staffers.

For Defense Minister Linda Reynolds in Cambra and as Justice Lee outlined in court yesterday his understanding of the facts is that the two went out for drinks after work with a big group of friends to several venues around Cambra then they returned to Parliament House their workplace uh and went into Reynolds office and this was the early.

Hours of the next morning now Justice Le founds that it's more likely than not and we're going to come back to what exactly that means that Bruce lurman raped Britney Higgins at that office so that's March 2019 that's a long way from April 2024 what has happened in those intervening years so then we fast forward 2 years to February of 2021 and.

That's when Britney Higgins went went to the media with these allegations that she had been raped in Parliament House by an unnamed to that point political staffer which we now know is Bruce lurman and I just want to be really clear in a criminal court he has always denied this and in fact he's always denied any sexual contact happened.

Between them Higgins sat down with interviews with news.com today you Samantha Maiden was the journalist there and with journalist Lisa Wilkinson who was then working with the network 10 show the project the interview with Wilkinson and the story in news.com came out on the same day that was February 15th 2021 so you've mentioned that this.

Case that lurman brought this case against Lisa Wilkinson and network 10 but you have mentioned to news.com.au so were they also being sued yeah they were also being sued and so was the ABC for broadcasting a speech by Higgins as well as Wilkinson and network 10 but lurman actually settled the cases with news.com to and ABC on the first day of these.

Exact proceedings last year so we've started with these very publicized allegations but they're made against a person who we don't know who they are it's an unnamed person so how do we get to knowing who Bruce lurman is well this is actually the first bit of what Justice Lee needed to establish in his judgment yesterday because in order to.

Sue someone for defamation you need to make it clear that they're talking about you and justice leag found that yeah a reasonable person would ascertain that the person who was the subject of Britney higgins's comments in that project interview was Bruce lurman uh even though Britney Higgins didn't specify the name of who she alleged had.

Raped her um but you know one of the first things that Justice Lee found was that he was identifiable Justice Lee said he was quote amply satisfied that lurman was identified and this was based on evidence given by witnesses that he described as quote tell so what was this Telltale evidence well Justice League turned to the fact that.

Lurman and Higgins had been at drinks on the night in question that he was at the time of the interview working in Sydney which lurman was and some loose details about the job he'd had before working for Reynolds and all of this plus a few other points were enough for some witnesses with quote specific knowledge of the situation to know who Higgins was.

Talking about so picture somebody you know watching this interview on television Bry hiview was yes I think who but the public only really became aware of Bruce lurman as the subject of this when the matter proceeded to a criminal trial in 20121 so what happened.

With that criminal trial well that trial was suspended due to juror misconduct and a retrial was later abandoned and I think that's what makes this defamation case really notable because there was never a criminal finding either way about what happened on that night in March 2019 and there still isn't and I think that's an important point but now.

There is a civil finding but this case yeah really moved into then the question of reputational damage so lurman believes that he's been identified despite not being named in this original interview that kind of gets the ball rolling on this and now that there hasn't been a criminal trial his name is just sort of out there associated with.

This unproven allegation so is that why what kind of brings him to this point of bringing a defamation case exactly and then this kind of forms then the second and third parts of what Justice Lee needed to establish to work out whether lurman had been defamed and so once we had established that it was in fact lurman who was the subject of the.

Interview we then move on to is the content of the interview the claims made against lurman are they true or not if they were true then Channel 10 and Lisa Wilkinson could rely on What's called the truth defense right so in order to kind of prove the truth defense it almost became you know a forensic trial in nature there were Witnesses being.

Called who were on security at Parliament House that night there were people who were at the drinks there was ex partners of both parties because what the court needed to ascertain is whether or not what channel 10 were claiming about Bruce lurman was true but they needed to do so not Beyond A Reasonable Doubt but on the balance of.

Probabilities I definitely have heard the phrase Beyond A Reasonable Doubt used before in terms of criminal cases so what's the balance of probabilities how's that different so in the criminal system and the Civil system there's two different burdens of proof and a burden of proof is the words used to describe what a party needs to prove in order to.

Prosecute the case now in the criminal system the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt and what that essentially means is in the mind of the judge or a jury there needs to be no doubt in their mind that what is being claimed did indeed happen so think about something like speeding in your car it's beyond A Reasonable Doubt because you.

Either going 100 km an hour or you weren't going 100 km an hour uh and so it's the job of a prosecutor to really prove that there's absolutely no doubt that this happened in a civil system we use a burden of proof called the balance of probabilities and the question that needs to be answered here is is it more likely than not that something happened.

So think about it almost is like 51% is it 51% likely that this happened and there's more chance that it did happen than it didn't happen and so that was the level of proof that Justice Lee was looking at when making his determination yesterday and Justice Lee did find that it is more likely than not that lurman did rape Higgins in Minister Reynolds.

Office in March 2019 Bruce lerman's not going to jail over this no so these have no relevance in the kind of criminal world uh in terms of the Criminal Justice System Bruce lurman has neither been found guilty or not guilty the trial was never finished so Justice Michael Lee has handed down uh a 300 Page Plus decision so what else was kind.

Of in that judgment well look there was a lot and you know we have this 300 Page decision that when printed would look and feel like a novel um we also had yesterday I think it was 2 and 1 half hours of judgment delivered felt like more yeah it was very long and so there's lots of analysis by Justice Lee he goes through systematically every.

Witness almost who is called uh discusses the reliability of everybody from Britney Higgins Bruce lurman Lisa Walkins everybody involved in the case really and what he found notably was that Bruce lurman was found to have told quote deliberate lies about quote important issues in the case now he also said that Higgins who testified in the.

Case to support ten and Wilkinson's had said quote untruths or distortions herself throughout giving evidence so what happens now well we have another court date uh and that's the 22nd of April so we don't have to wait too long for that and that's when parties submit what's called costs and costs is essentially think of it as a receipt of.

How much it has cost for the legal representation that the parties have had to have to present their case at this trial and what typically happens and we don't know whether this is going to happen for sure but it's it's it's reasonably likely that lurman will be ordered to either partially or fully cover the legal costs of 10 and.

Wilkinson and this is almost a recognition from the court that in failing to convince the court of his argument uh somebody has to foot the bill right and so I mean that could be in the millions of dollars and we're not going to know exactly how much that is until the 22nd of April that's when the parties have to submit their cost to the.

Court and then Justice League will go back and review them and work out how much Bruce lurman has to pay now it's really important that we also acknowledge that Bruce lurman has the option to appeal this civil case so whilst it might feel like a conclusion in the end of the road it's not exactly the end of this story but a big moment.

In defamation law and in media law here in Australia

Sharing is caring!