Lawyers for Bruce Lehrmann have argued the former Liberal staffer is entitled to "substantial damages", even if the judge in his defamation trial rejects his denial of having any sexual activity with Brittany Higgins.
Key points:
- The Federal Court publishes final submissions in the defamation trial brought by Bruce Lehrmann
- Mr Lehrmann is suing Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson over coverage of Brittany Higgins's rape allegation
- A decision in the case is not expected until later this year
The Federal Court has released the written submissions by each of the parties in the case, which was brought by Mr Lehrmann against Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson.
He claims he was defamed by an interview with Ms Higgins on The Project in February 2021, in which she alleged she had been raped at Parliament House in March 2019.
Mr Lehrmann has always denied any sexual activity between the pair, and a criminal trial in the ACT Supreme Court collapsed in October 2022 due to juror misconduct.
Prosecutors declined to re-try the case out of concern for Ms Higgins's health that stemmed from medical reports, leaving no findings against Mr Lehrmann.
In the defamation case, Network Ten has the burden of proving the alleged rape did occur on the balance of probabilities.
During the oral closing arguments shortly before Christmas, the court heard it may be open for Justice Michael Lee to find the pair had sex in the office of Senator Linda Reynolds, but not be satisfied that the intercourse was non-consensual.
Mr Lehrmann's lawyers Steven Whybrow and Matthew Richardson have argued that in that case, Mr Lehrmann should still receive substantial damages.
"Findings that Mr Lehrmann was on occasions dishonest … are a serious matter which reflect poorly on him," they argued.
"But they are a very different thing from the allegation that he raped a young woman."
Both Network Ten and Ms Wilkinson have argued that such a finding should mean Mr Lehrmann receives no damages.
In its submission, Ten's lawyer Matthew Collins KC argued that such a finding would amount to "wicked conduct of the highest magnitude" by Mr Lehrmann.
He argued Mr Lehrmann would have brought the case on a "false factual foundation", amounting to a "gross misuse of the court's processes".
In her submission, Ms Wilkinson's lawyer Sue Chrysanthou described such conduct, if that were the court's finding, as "perverting the course of justice."
Final submissions see credibilities savaged
Both sides have used the submissions to launch fresh attacks on the credibility of the two key witnesses in the case.
Mr Lehrmann's lawyers opened their submission by refuting claims their client is a "compulsive liar," though they did concede there are issues with his evidence.
"It is accepted that Mr Lehrmann's evidence was in a number of respects unsatisfactory, and it would be open to the court to form an adverse view of his credit," the submission reads.
But they argued his evidence about the core allegation remained "unshaken and consistent".
In contrast, they submitted that Ms Higgins is "prepared to assert as truthful things she does not in fact know to be correct".
Network Ten has argued Ms Higgins made "many appropriate concessions" and was otherwise a candid and honest witness.
"Her evidence in respect of the sexual assault was raw and compelling, and it was consistent with the objective evidence, where available," Mr Collins said.
He described Mr Lehrmann's demeanour throughout his evidence as "combative and defensive" and urged the court to approach his evidence "with extreme suspicion".
"Mr Lehrmann was an actively dishonest witness," he argued.
Network Ten has also run a qualified privilege defence, arguing its broadcast was in the public interest and the preparation of it was reasonable, even if it is unable to prove the substantial truth of its reporting.
Justice Michael Lee has reserved his decision in the case.