Bruce Lehrmann has failed in his bid to overturn a defamation ruling, with the Full Court of the Federal Court dismissing his appeal in a decisive judgment. The case, which has captivated Australia, centred on a 2021 broadcast by Network Ten where journalist Lisa Wilkinson reported Brittany Higgins's allegation of rape in a parliamentary office.
Court Upholds Landmark Ruling on Defamation
The three-judge bench unanimously rejected Lehrmann's appeal, finding no error in the original trial judge's reasoning. The court upheld the finding that, on the balance of probabilities, Lehrmann had raped Brittany Higgins. This civil standard of proof is lower than the 'beyond reasonable doubt' threshold required in a criminal trial, which is why the verdict differs from the earlier abandoned criminal prosecution.
The judges emphasised that the broadcast by Network Ten was substantially true in its core claims. Lehrmann, who has consistently denied the allegations, now faces a multimillion-dollar legal bill for his own costs and a significant portion of the costs for Ten and Wilkinson. The original trial, a marathon legal battle, heard extensive evidence over several weeks earlier this year.
Reactions and Wider Political Context
The ruling has sent shockwaves through Australia's political and media landscapes. Lisa Wilkinson and Network Ten welcomed the decision, stating it vindicated their journalism and Brittany Higgins's courage in coming forward. The case has been intrinsically linked to a national conversation about the treatment of women in politics and the workplace.
Separately, the case had political ramifications, with the incident involving Higgins occurring in the office of a government minister. The fallout contributed to scrutiny of the former Coalition government's culture and its handling of the allegation. This legal conclusion arrives as politicians face ongoing questions about parliamentary safety and accountability.
Implications for Media and Defamation Law
This high-profile loss for Lehrmann is seen as a significant moment for Australian defamation law and public interest journalism. It reinforces the defence of truth, which media organisations must prove when their reporting is challenged. Legal experts suggest the judgment may make it more difficult for plaintiffs to sue over reports concerning serious allegations if the media outlet can demonstrate substantial truth.
The case also highlighted the immense personal toll of such litigation. All parties involved have endured years of intense public scrutiny and legal warfare. With the appeal now concluded, the focus shifts to the lasting impact of the case on Australia's legal, political, and social fabric.
