‘Rape myths’: Lisa Wilkinson and Ten fire back at Bruce Lehrmann’s last-ditch bid to clear name

Network 10 and Lisa Wilkinson have asked the Supreme Court to reject Bruce Lehrmann’s last-ditch attempt to reverse his damaging libel case loss, arguing it lacks “a sufficient prospect of success.”

The former Liberal staffer launched a high-stakes defamation lawsuit over an interview with Wilkinson on The Project in which Brittany Higgins claimed she was raped by a colleague in Parliament House in March 2019.

But he was at the end of his damning findings when Federal Court Judge Michael Lee dismissed the case and found on the balance of probabilities that he had raped Ms Higgins.

Lehrmann sought to have these findings overturned by the Full Court of the Federal Court; but this too was rejected in December.

Lehrmann applied for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court earlier this year.

In submissions to the Supreme Court, his lawyers argued that Judge Lee conducted his “own investigation” and relied on illegal material.

Lehrmann wants the case sent back to the Federal Court.

Wilkinson’s attorneys filed responses in which they argued that Lehrmann’s claim that Judge Lee’s “factual findings were compromised” had “no factual basis.”

Submissions prepared by solicitors Sue Chrysanthou SC and Barry Dean argue that Lehrmann did not raise the claim during his appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court.

“The issues raised by the applicant in relation to the preliminary ruling at this time have not been submitted to the Full Court on Appeal below,” the response said.

“Instead, the applicant unsuccessfully chose to file a full appeal seeking a ruling in his favor on different grounds.”

In his submissions, Ten said Lehrmann’s application “raises no question of public importance,” “raises no question of law” that the Supreme Court should resolve, and “lacks any or sufficient prospect of success.”

It was stated that Judge Lee “expressly refused” to rely on the academic article.

Ten argued that Judge Lee was merely referring to the legal debate over whether to include evidence from a clinical psychologist in articles about “rape myths.”

However, this evidence was not presented at the hearing.

Ten argued that Judge Lee cited the article “in the context of the legal argument (and only in that context)” in his decision, and said this was not an example of Judge Lee “conducting his own research”.

In his landmark decision, Judge Lee wrote: “I will not rely on matters not found in the evidence.”

The findings against Lehrmann made by Judges Michael Wigney, Craig Colvin and Wendy Abraham in the Full Court of the Federal Court were far more dire than those made by Judge Lee.

In its written decision, the court found that Lehrmann had “actual knowledge” that Ms. Higgins had not consented.

“The conditions presented to Mr. Lehrmann… loudly suggested to anyone of normal ability that the very drunk, passive and silent woman, prone to drowsiness and having a serious impact on her cognitive abilities, who was her assistant colleague at work and was not in any personal relationship with Mr. Lehrmann, did not consent to sexual intercourse,” the three-judge panel said.

Lehrmann has consistently denied the allegation.

He faced a trial in the ACT Supreme Court that ended in a mistrial due to juror misconduct.

The Director of Public Prosecutions refused to order a retrial due to concerns for Ms Higgins’ welfare.