Bruce Lehrmann court fight centres on Brittany Higgins documentary Silenced

A proposal to require the production of internal documentary material from a film about Brittany Higgins was challenged in court; Former political staffer Bruce Lehrmann is set to go to trial on rape charges later this year.

The application, which was heard before Judge Deborah Richards at Toowoomba District Court on Thursday, was made on behalf of Stranger Than Fiction Films Ltd, the production company behind the 2026 documentary Silenced.

Senior Advocate Dauid Sibtain, on behalf of the film company, argued that a subpoena issued in May did not pursue a legitimate judicial purpose.

The subpoena was issued during the trial involving Mr Lehrmann, who is facing two rape charges in Toowoomba. He has not yet entered a defense and has previously indicated he will contest the allegations.

Mr Lehrmann’s legal team is seeking access to a range of production materials, including raw footage, transcripts and distribution details, due to pre-trial concerns.

At the start of the hearing, Mr Sibtain said the application was intended to quash a subpoena issued on 1 May.

Judge Richards was told four requests had been withdrawn, while three were still being objected to.

Defense lawyer Zali Burrows appeared before Mr. Lehrmann and pressed the purpose of the remaining requests, including unedited promotional materials.

Mr Sibtain argued there was no evidence the material would be used in any way that affected the trial and described concerns about future use of the material as “pure speculation”.

“This does not satisfy the card test for a moment,” Mr. Sibtain said.

He argued the documentary did not reference the Toowoomba cases and instead focused on other publicly disclosed legal matters involving Ms Higgins.

A key point in the debate was whether the release of raw and unedited footage from the production could be justified.

Ms Burrows argued that such material could potentially be used in pre-trial promotional content and could therefore require injunctive relief to protect against bias.

“What’s the point of this?” Judge Richards asked during the interview, emphasizing the relevance of the raw footage to the criminal case.

Ms Burrows said the footage could be used in promotional or additional material and argued that disclosure would allow the defense to consider whether to seek an injunction preventing its publication before the trial.

Speaking to the court, the woman said: “This application does not aim to stop the release of the movie Silenced at all. It is just timing. She does not want it to be released before or during the hearing.”

Mr Sibtain rejected this view, arguing there was no evidence the raw footage would be released and concerns about its future use were speculative.

In his written submissions he noted what he described as a significant concession that the film did not reference the Toowoomba case.

But Ms Burrows disputed that characterization and told the court the submission the film was still linked to Ms Higgins’ public comments and wider social media activities.

He argued that the documentary’s focus on Ms Higgins and her public statements risked confusing potential jurors, especially given the overlap between the historical allegations and the current cases.

He said public comment and promotional activities associated with the film could blur the lines between jurors’ unrelated jurisdictions and legal issues.

Mr. Sibtain said that even if Ms. Higgins had made public statements, that was not a basis for forcing the film company into production.

He argued that any recourse alleging biased conduct should be directed elsewhere and not through subpoenas to a third-party production company.

Mr Sibtain also told the court the documentary had previously been shown at the Sydney Film Festival, suggesting concerns about the timing of the release had already been overcome by events.

“If there was any concern that the release and distribution of the film would affect a fair trial, that horse has bolted,” he said.

Mr. Sibtain suggested that Ms. Burrows could attend a public screening of the documentary instead.

“If my learned friend wishes to see the film. I understand it will be released tomorrow night. So there is every opportunity for him to go to Dendy in Newtown, New South Wales, and see what the film contains,” he said.

Ms Burrows said the suggestion was “wholly inappropriate”.

Judge Richards also heard submissions on whether distribution plans and international broadcast arrangements were relevant to the criminal case.

Ms Burrows argued such material could indicate whether the film would reach Queensland audiences, including potential jurors.

Mr Sibtain rejected this argument, stating that the production company should not be required to disclose commercial distribution plans unless there was a clear judicial purpose.

Judge Richards reserved his decision and will issue his decision at a later date.

Mr Sibtain said the production company could seek costs, arguing that the subpoena lacked a legitimate judicial purpose and amounted to an abuse of process.