\n<\/p>\n
Bruce Lehrmann\u2019s appeal of Justice Michael Lee\u2019s April 2024 defamation judgement wrapped up on Thursday, one day short of the three days which had been set down to hear it.<\/p>\n
It was an abrupt end to a high-profile four-year legal battle over Network Ten\u2019s interview with Brittany Higgins on The Project on 15 February 2021.<\/p>\n
The justices have reserved their decision on whether to overturn Lee\u2019s finding that the former Liberal staffer was not defamed by Lisa Wilkinson and Network 10 when they alleged Higgins was raped in Parliament House.<\/p>\n
The abrupt ending to the trial was not the only surprise which played out on Wednesday and Thursday in a Sydney courtroom.<\/p>\n
Despite the nation\u2019s two most accomplished defamation barristers, Dr Matt Collins KC and Sue Chrysanthou SC, appearing for the respondents, all the attention was on Lehrmann\u2019s lawyer Zali Burrows.<\/p>\n
She is a well-known criminal defence lawyer but has no experience in defamation law and has not been admitted to the bar. So she seemed to struggle at times to present complex legal arguments before the full bench of the federal court, justices Michael Wigney, Craig Colvin and Wendy Abraham.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m just going to try and do the best I can,\u201d Burrows said after apologising for her client\u2019s failure to retain a silk.<\/p>\n
Despite briefing Guy Reynolds SC, and delaying the trial by six months to accomodate his schedule, Lehrmann \u201ccouldn\u2019t afford\u201d him and Burrows had to press on alone.<\/p>\n
The written submissions had been lodged back in March, presumably with the assistance of Reynolds, but now the four grounds of appeal had to be articulated in verbal submissions. The justices were unfailingly polite, making allowances and taking time to explain law and procedure.<\/p>\n
Sign up: AU Breaking News email<\/p>\n
The uneven match between the parties produced some extraordinary courtroom scenes, all broadcast on the federal court\u2019s YouTube channel.<\/p>\n
Here are five key moments.<\/p>\n
Arguing that Lehrmann was denied procedural fairness and natural justice because Lee came up with \u201chis own version\u201d of how the alleged rape occurred, Burrows faced a sceptical bench.<\/p>\n
\u201cI don\u2019t understand the logic of this submission,\u201d Colvin said.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou need to explain why it is a different case.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt is all very well to say these things out loud, but you need to explain why this is a different case.\u201d<\/p>\n
Burrows claimed Ten reported a \u201cforceful\u201d rape whereas Lee found a \u201csoft rape\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt was asserted against Mr Lehrmann \u2026 that he violently raped, that it was done in a violent nature,\u201d she said. \u201cWhereas His Honour found a totally different case as if it was, using the phrase, a soft rape.\u201d<\/p>\n
Colvin: \u201cI\u2019m not sure he found a non-violent rape, and I\u2019m not sure that\u2019s a concept I understand.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/span>Burrows and Lehrmann outside court during a rainy week in Sydney.<\/span> Photograph: Steve Markham\/AAP<\/p>\n Much of the time over the two days was taken up with this argument, which was dismissed by Ten\u2019s silk Collins as \u201cmisconceived\u201d and \u201ca distraction, in our respectful submission\u201d.<\/p>\n Collins said it was an \u201castonishing submission\u201d that Lehrmann\u2019s evidence might have been different if he had been given the chance to respond to questions about a \u201cnon-violent rape\u201d.<\/p>\n Wigney asked how Lehrmann would have answered questions differently when he had consistently maintained no sexual intercourse took place.<\/p>\n She repeated that Lehmann did not get an opportunity to answer differently.<\/p>\n One thing Burrows was good at was presenting Lehrmann as a victim. She asked the court to substantially increase his damages should he win on appeal because he has been vilified in traditional and social media.<\/p>\n \u201cHe\u2019s pretty much become the national joke \u2026 Australia\u2019s most hated man,\u201d Burrows said.<\/p>\n She bemoaned the fact that when he left court \u201cno 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, \u2018Are you OK?\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n Colvin cut her off: \u201cIs this a speech or is this a submission?\u201d<\/p>\n Burrows asked the bench on multiple occasions to adjourn so she could have more time to prepare her own submissions. They refused every time.<\/p>\n Wigney said Burrows had already \u201cobtained the court\u2019s indulgence\u201d to commence her reply to submissions a day later than scheduled, and she should start her response.<\/p>\n \u201cIf I can put it this way, nothing that has occurred this morning has impacted, or could impact, on your ability to reply to those matters,\u201d Wigney said.<\/p>\n After another request Burrows was told to \u201cstart now\u201d and reminded she had \u201cmore time over lunch\u201d to sort out any issues.<\/p>\n She made a final bid for more time at the end of the day, asking if she could finish her submissions early and come back on Friday.<\/p>\n \u201cThere are further documents I prepared but I\u2019m embarrassed to say they\u2019re not here. Can we finish early and resume tomorrow morning?\u201d she asked.<\/p>\n Wigney replied: \u201cI don\u2019t think so, I think we need to resume 1755869197.\u201d<\/p>\n When Burrows asked for a clarification of a question from Colvin about a challenge to the underlying findings, Wigney appeared perplexed.<\/p>\n \u201cIt seems to me to be a very important and central issue for your appeal,\u201d Wigney said.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s your appeal. What are the \u2026 do you understand the reference to the underlying facts?\u201d<\/p>\n Wigney said Burrows had been in possession of Ten\u2019s written submissions \u201cfor some time, quite clearly\u201d, and they list the underlying facts \u201cin quite simple terms\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cSo you\u2019ve had plenty of opportunity to consider this issue,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n While Burrows did address the matters in the appeal proper, she had little to say about Ten and Wilkinson\u2019s extensive challenges of Lee\u2019s judgement.<\/p>\n Ten said Lee was wrong to find Lehrmann was reckless to consent for sex, based on how intoxicated Higgins was. Wilkinson argued Lee erred when he found Wilkinson\u2019s team failed in their defence of qualified privilege, known as section 30.<\/p>\n They argued Lee should have found that \u201can intentional rape\u201d had taken place, instead of finding that there was no evidence Lehrmann knew that Higgins did not consent to the sexual activity.<\/p>\n Chrysanthou sought to overturn Lee\u2019s decision on Wilkinson\u2019s qualified privilege defence, arguing her client acted reasonably in preparation of the program.<\/p>\n \u201cIt was always our case at trial that Ms Wilkinson should have succeeded in this defence, but also so should have Network Ten,\u201d Chrysanthou said.<\/p>\n But after hours of submissions that detailed where Wilkinson believed Lee had made errors, Burrows had no reply to Collins or Chrysanthou.<\/p>\n Wigney prompted Burrows to answer before he wrapped up, saying \u201cthe compelling inference is that your client was not merely reckless but knew that Ms Higgins was not consenting\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cNow, you haven\u2019t addressed that at all. It\u2019s detailed written submissions have been made in relation to it and, oral submissions. Is there\u2026 anything you want to put to us in relation to that?\u201d<\/p>\n Burrows never took up the offer.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Bruce Lehrmann\u2019s appeal of Justice Michael Lee\u2019s April 2024 defamation judgement wrapped up on Thursday, one day short of the three days which had been set down to hear it. It was an abrupt end to a high-profile four-year legal battle over Network Ten\u2019s interview with Brittany Higgins on The Project on 15 February 2021.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":17192,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[56],"tags":[713,346,2029,294,4718,10331,788,175,10333,1541,10332],"class_list":{"0":"post-17191","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-crime-justice","8":"tag-appeal","9":"tag-australia","10":"tag-australias","11":"tag-bruce","12":"tag-defamation","13":"tag-hated","14":"tag-key","15":"tag-law","16":"tag-lehrmanns","17":"tag-man","18":"tag-moments"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17191","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=17191"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17191\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/17192"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=17191"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=17191"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/naijaglobalnews.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=17191"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Lehrmann as the \u2018victim\u2019<\/h2>\n
\u2018I need more time\u2019<\/h2>\n
\u2018It\u2019s your appeal\u2019<\/h2>\n
No reply to notice of contention<\/h2>\n