Bruce Lehrmann went back for his hat and three judges made a damning finding against him

Bruce Lehrmann returned to the lions’ den to claim his hat for a second time – but this time the court found even harsher findings against him, concluding that he knew Brittany Higgins had not consented to sex.

Mr Lehrmann, previously described by his lawyer Zali Burrows as “the most hated man in Australia”, was absent from a Sydney court this week as he faced another famous black eye in his failed attempt to reverse his libel case loss to Network 10 and Lisa Wilkinson.

He suffered a bitter loss at the Full Court of the Federal Court as judges Michael Wigney, Craig Colvin and Wendy Abraham rejected all four grounds of appeal.

In doing so, they upheld Judge Michael Lee’s now oft-cited decision, which concluded, on the civil balance of probabilities standard, that Mr Lehrmann raped his colleague Brittany Higgins in Parliament House in the early hours of March 23, 2019.

LEHRMANN’S HAT

The former Liberal staffer sued Network 10 and Ms Wilkinson for libel in 2023 in a bid to repair her reputation, telling Seven’s Spotlight “let’s light some fire” and “everything needs to be out there, out in the open, so people can take it for what it is.”

But he was hit in the Federal Court: Judge Lee described Mr Lehrmann’s account as “elaborate fantasy” and his alleged reasons for returning to Parliament House just after 1.30pm as a “transparent lie”.

During his evidence, Mr Lehrmann claimed he returned to Parliament House to collect his keys after drinking at 80s-themed bar 88MPH.

Judge Lee stated that he could call his girlfriend, with whom he was living at the time, and let her into their home.

“To say Mr. Lehrmann was a poor witness is an understatement,” he said, describing him as a “prankster” who left a young woman naked in Parliament.

In a now famous quote, Justice Lee commented that Mr Lehrmann had pleaded not guilty to a charge of sexual intercourse without consent and was tried in the ACT Supreme Court but the jury was dismissed before reaching a verdict.

“Escaping from the lions’ den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of returning for his hat,” Judge Lee said.

However, Lehrmann returned to collect his hat again. And I got lost.

On Wednesday, the Full Court of the Federal Court not only dismissed all of his grounds of appeal, but also upheld Network 10 and Ms Wilkinson’s argument that Judge Lee should have found that Mr Lehrmann knew Ms Higgins was not consenting.

REASON FOR CONFLICT

Mr. Lehrmann has consistently maintained his innocence and has claimed he had no sexual contact with Ms. Higgins after parting ways with her as she entered Senator Linda Reynolds’ office that evening.

In his findings delivered in April last year, Judge Lee said: “I am … satisfied that sexual intercourse took place and that it took place with Mr Lehrmann, above Ms Higgins, on the sofa in the Minister’s office.”

But he could not find Ms Higgins saying “no, over and over again” to Lehrmann, as she stated in her statement.

He said he couldn’t express anything and was “like a log.”

During the hearing, the court heard Ms Higgins told her former colleague she could not consent to Mr Lehrmann because “that would be the equivalent of breaking a log”.

Department of Defense liaison officer Christopher Payne said he remembered speaking to Ms Higgins, who was crying after seeing her walking past his office.

The court heard he asked her: “Can I ask you a very direct question?”

Mrs Higgins: “Of course. Go ahead”.

Mr. Payne: “Did he rape you?”

Ms Higgins: “I couldn’t consent. That would be like breaking a log.”

Judge Lee said Mr Lehrmann was probably “determined” to have sex with Ms Higgins and that “in his search for gratification, he somehow did not care whether Ms Higgins understood or accepted what was going on”.

But he concluded: “I do not think I can be positively satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Lehrmann changed his mind to consent and had a genuine cognitive awareness at the relevant time that Ms Higgins was not consenting to sex.”

‘I SCREAM LOUDLY’

In its written decision, the Full Court of the Federal Court said: “His Honor should have found Mr Lehrmann’s actual knowledge that Ms Higgins did not consent to sexual intercourse”.

The court ruled that the circumstances required Mr Lehrmann to “scream loudly” that Ms Higgins was not consenting.

The three judges noted that he was “very drunk”, “passive and silent”, “prone to drowsiness”, which had a “significant impact on his cognitive abilities”.

“Based on the findings made by the chief justice, the only reasonable inference from the facts known to Mr. Lehrmann at the time is that, although Mr. Lehrmann had decided at some point before the intercourse began whether Ms. Higgins had consented to sex and whether she was aware that she had not consented, he nevertheless proceeded,” the court said.

The three judges found that Mr Lehrmann was aware that Ms Higgins was quite drunk.

Bruce Lehrmann’s lawyer has controversially claimed he is an ‘inspiration’ after his appeal against a libel lawsuit against Ten and Lisa Wilkinson was rejected.

“He knew that as the night progressed he encouraged her to drink and that Ms Higgins consumed at least two and possibly more shots at the 88MPH nightclub,” the court said in its ruling.

“At the nightclub, Mr. Lehrmann and Ms. Higgins had a passionate kiss and were very touchy with each other.”

The court also noted that Ms. Higgins fell at 88 MPH and had to be assisted while Mr. Lehrmann was watching.

Dismissing Mr Lehrmann’s appeal, the court ordered Wilkinson and Ten to pay the legal costs of the appeal, which are expected to be several hundred thousand dollars.

The Federal Court had previously ordered Ten and Wilkinson to pay $2 million after losing the initial case.

He has already indicated his intention to appeal to the Supreme Court.