Viewers of Channel Seven’s interview with Bruce Lehrmann on Sunday were told that this was a special occasion because it was the first opportunity he had to tell his side of the story about the Parliament House rape allegation.
Actually, the first opportunity was during his rape trial, an opportunity Lehrmann declined to take. Instead, he exercised his right to silence while his accuser, Brittany Higgins, was questioned for four days.
If he is so keen to tell his story now, why not then?
We all know what happened. The trial collapsed, with the prosecutor dropping the charges out of concern that a retrial would pose an “unacceptable risk” to Higgins’ health. Lehrmann maintains he is not guilty.
Had he been cross-examined at the criminal trial it is likely the questions would have been more rigorous and forensic than those bowled up by Spotlight star Liam Bartlett – although we might have missed the news about him being a mother’s boy and proud of it.
One of the questions Bartlett could have asked is “why didn’t you give your version of events at the trial?”
Lehrmann told the Sunday night viewers that his lawyers advised him against the TV interview. It was a pity Lehrmann didn’t take it.
Uncertainty remains about the various reasons he advanced for the early morning visit to the ministerial office with Brittany Higgins – collecting his keys, making important notes, drinking whisky, or gathering documents?
Fiona Brown, the defence minister’s chief of staff, told the court he advised her that he returned to drink whisky. He later told the federal police there was no whisky in the ministerial office, although another witness said Lehrmann kept alcohol within reach of his desk. It’s still a puzzle.
Brown also told the court there was no urgent work that needed to be done at 1.45am on Saturday morning.
The former Liberal staffer and ongoing litigant also denied that he had been kissing Higgins at a bar on the night in question. He offered the imaginative suggestion that Higgins invented the rape to save her own job as a media person in the senator Linda Reynolds’ office.
Fiona Brown’s evidence at the criminal trial was that it was not suggested to Higgins she would lose her job.
Which leaves unresolved why the complainant decided to take all her clothes off and lie prone on the defence minister’s couch while Lehrmann was nearby urgently working on his notes – only to leave the building without her.
Many known unknowns linger after the “nothing off limits”, no-holds-barred TV interview. Fortunately for his peace of mind, Lehrmann recognises that many people may still suspect him of being a rapist but at least his truth is out there.
His truth is far from being fully interrogated. Defamation litigation remains on foot, with actions against Network Ten and the former Project frontperson Lisa Wilkinson, as well as against the ABC over a broadcast of a National Press Club event featuring Higgins and the campaigner against sexual assault Grace Tame.
These are civil defamation cases in the federal court. His claim against news.com.au and its political editor, Samantha Maiden, has been settled without payment of damages or an apology, while the articles he claimed identified him remain online.
The previous costs orders were vacated, while News Life Media, the publisher, did make a contribution to Lehrmann’s costs. There had been a strenuously fought application for the case against news.com.au and Maiden, as well as Ten and Wilkinson, to be brought outside the normal statutory one-year limitation period.
He succeeded in obtaining an extension of time after arguing that he had been advised to concentrate on the criminal proceedings first and foremost before bringing civil claims – so some of the contribution is likely to go to his costs in that action.
In view of the niggardly terms of settlement it must have been a case with precious little upside for the applicant.
The Network Ten/Wilkinson claim remains on foot. As the Spotlight viewers saw on Sunday night, The Project did not appear to be shy about spoon-feeding Higgins with a line. It was important in her interview to emphasise the sexually threatening culture at Parliament House and that she is taking steps to do something about it. “You must get that across,” she was told.
Ten is pleading defences of truth, statutory qualified privilege and implied freedom of communication of matters of political and governmental interest – in an attempt to show that on the civil standard of proof Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins at Parliament House in 2019.
The ABC is defending its Press Club broadcast on grounds of public interest, fair report, qualified privilege and innocent dissemination.
Lehrmann is also leaving open the possibility he will sue Higgins herself – maybe over this statement at the Press Club, where she studiously didn’t name him: “I was raped on a couch in what I thought was the safest and most secure building in Australia; in a workplace that has a police and security presence 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”
Higgins’ former employer, the then minister for defence, Linda Reynolds, brought two defamation cases in the Western Australian supreme court against HarperCollins and journalist Aaron Patrick and, separately, against David Sharaz, Higgins’ fiance.
The former claim, dealing with her alleged treatment of Higgins, has been settled and the latter, which concerns two tweets, is ongoing.
Throughout, the Murdoch press, particularly the Australian newspaper, has been an unofficial, if heavy-handed, cheerleader for Lehrmann.
Still to come is the Sofronoff report into the ACT criminal process, including the alleged role of the police in hampering the prosecution.
For defamation claimants to give interviews on Channel Seven’s Spotlight can be a dangerous business. It might be recalled that the actor Craig McLachlan did this in May 2021, where in raw footage he boasted about a large amount of evidence in the form of emails, texts and photos.
This evidence had not been sent to the defendants in his defamation action against Fairfax, the ABC and fellow actor Christie Whelan Browne.
Once the defendants got hold of it, he withdrew the case and agreed to pay $2m in costs.
It’s one thing to give an interview on television, it is quite another to go to court seeking vindication. As Ben Roberts-Smith well knows.
• Richard Ackland writes at 500Words.com.au
