Bruce Lehrmann has suffered a comprehensive legal defeat after the full bench of the federal court dismissed his appeal against a defamation judgment. The court not only upheld the finding that he raped Brittany Higgins but went further, stating he was actually aware she did not consent.
Appeal judges strengthen finding on consent
The three appeal justices—Michael Wigney, Craig Colvin, and Wendy Abraham—delivered a unanimous judgment that went beyond the original trial judge's conclusions. While Justice Michael Lee found Lehrmann was "so intent upon gratification to be indifferent" to Higgins's consent, the appeal bench stated Lee "should have found actual knowledge" that she did not consent to sexual intercourse in Parliament House in 2019.
This significant strengthening of the finding represents a major blow to Lehrmann's attempts to clear his name. The court's ruling on Wednesday, 2024, leaves the initial defamation judgment intact, which found on the balance of probabilities that Lehrmann raped his then colleague.
Complete loss on all grounds and mounting costs
Lehrmann's legal team pursued four grounds of appeal, challenging procedural fairness and the interpretation of the broadcast. The appeal court rejected all four arguments entirely. This includes his claim that an ordinary viewer of The Project would have believed he committed a violent rape, and his contention that Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson had not sufficiently proven their case.
Financially, the loss compounds an already dire situation for the 30-year-old former Liberal staffer. His existing debt of $2 million in costs from the original trial was paused during the appeal. With this dismissal, he must now add the significant legal costs for Ten and Wilkinson to that sum. The court has heard Lehrmann, now a full-time law student, cannot afford representation and has no means to repay the debt, having relied on pro bono lawyers.
Court's view on journalistic 'reasonableness'
In a notable part of the judgment, the appeal judges addressed the defence of qualified privilege and Justice Lee's criticism of Lisa Wilkinson's journalism. The trio "respectfully" disagreed with elements of Lee's analysis, suggesting he did not fully consider evidence supporting Wilkinson's actions.
They pointed to matters such as Higgins's report to the Australian Federal Police and the questions Ten put to witnesses before broadcast. "There were matters supporting the account given by Ms Higgins that she had been sexually assaulted on the couch in the Minister’s office to which his Honour did not refer in considering reasonableness," the judgment stated.
Outside the Sydney court, Lehrmann's lawyer, Zali Burrows, framed her client as "an inspiration to those who say they’ve been wrongly accused" and claimed he was denied procedural fairness—an argument the court explicitly rejected. Burrows revealed Lehrmann is considering applying for special leave to appeal to the High Court, indicating the legal battle may continue despite two resounding losses.
