Bruce Lehrmann has returned to the national spotlight, revealed as the “high-profile man” charged with an alleged Toowoomba rape in October 2021, two years after the alleged rape of former Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins in Parliament House.
The ensuing court case sparked a nationwide reckoning on gender politics, and sparked a flurry of lawsuits between media companies, journalists, politicians and those at the centre of the saga.
Crikey looks at the complex legal web of who’s suing who, which cases have been settled and which cases are ongoing.
R v Lehrmann
Lehrmann was revealed yesterday as the unidentified man charged with two counts of alleged rape in relation to a woman in Toowoomba in October 2021. His lawyers this week lost an application for judicial review of a magistrate’s decision to not grant a non-publication order in the case, which would have kept his identity anonymous. A number of media companies, including News Corp, Nine, Network Ten, The Guardian and the ABC were also listed as respondents to the application.
Lehrmann rose to national prominence in November 2021 after being accused of alledging raping his former colleague, Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins. He pleaded not guilty at trial, with a jury unable to reach a verdict. The jury was later discharged and a mistrial was declared due to a juror’s misconduct.The case was eventually dropped by prosecutors with regards to Higgins’ health and well-being. There is no suggestion that the recent charges have any relation to the Higgins matter.
Queensland made changes (bringing it in line with other states, on the recommendation of a women’s safety and justice taskforce) to allow the naming of accused sex offenders after charge, as opposed to after they were committed to stand trial. With the laws applying retrospectively, Lehrmann needed to successfully apply for a non-publication order, which his lawyers unsuccessfully argued would prejudice Toowoomba jurors and deteriorate his mental health.
Justice Peter Applegarth, sitting in the Queensland Supreme Court on Thursday, agreed with the trial judge, Magistrate Clare Kelly, in finding that Lehrmann “chose for whatever reason to appear more than once on national television and revisit events that had triggered his mental illness in early 2021”, and “seemingly felt well enough to engage with sections of the national media, and to deal with any resulting further coverage he received”.
Justice Applegarth was also particularly critical of Lehrmann’s prime-time interview with Seven’s Liam Bartlett, noting Lehrmann was keen to “light some fires” and “litigate pending defamation cases”.
“I hope that Channel 7 paid him or the solicitor a lot of money … for the consequences (the interview) has had on this application, if nothing else,” Justice Applegarth said.
Seven was not one of the media companies represented amongst the respondents in the non-publication review hearing.
Lehrmann is next listed to appear before Toowoomba Magistrates Court on November 1.
Lehrmann v Lisa Wilkinson, News Corp, Network 10, ABC
In February 2021, Samantha Maiden and news.com.au published an interview with Brittany Higgins that included her allegation that she was raped in Parliament House in 2019, but without naming Lehrmann. Network Ten’s The Project aired an interview with Higgins that night, led by host Lisa Wilkinson.
In February 2022, Brittany Higgins addressed the National Press Club in Canberra alongside sexual abuse survivor and 2021 Australian of the Year Grace Tame, and the speech was aired on the ABC.
After the criminal trial concluded, in April 2023, Lehrmann filed defamation proceedings against Lisa Wilkinson and Network Ten, News Corp and Samantha Maiden, and the ABC. Acting for Lehrmann in all three cases was Mark O’Brien, a defamation lawyer who also acted for disgraced former soldier and former Seven West executive Ben Roberts-Smith.
In May 2023, News Corp and Lehrmann settled out of court with all claims dropped against the company and Samantha Maiden. Lehrmann did not receive any damages, and the articles remained online with an editor’s note.
The ABC and Ten cases remain ongoing and are set down for November 22 before Justice Lee in the Federal Court.
Shane Drumgold v ACT Board of Inquiry
Shane Drumgold was the ACT director of public prosecutions at the time of the Lehrmann/Higgins case. Drumgold ran the case and dropped the charges after a jury failed to reach a verdict, and did not pursue a retrial with consideration for Higgins’ mental health.
Drumgold then accused police of aligning with Lehrmann’s defence, calling for a public inquiry. Former judge Walter Sofronoff KC was selected by the ACT government to lead the inquiry, which was scathing of Drumgold’s conduct in the case.
It found he lost objectivity, misled courts and kept material from defence, although the report itself was also found to have been given to journalists ahead of its filing, with one journalist seeing a copy of the report before ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr.
It is next set for hearing in the ACT Supreme Court for February 12, 2024.
Drumgold has now commenced proceedings in the ACT courts for judicial review of the findings on the grounds that many of the findings were made unreasonably, that he was denied a fair hearing, that it was biased, and that the inquiry broke the law by disclosing material to journalists.
Linda Reynolds v David Sharaz and Brittany Higgins
Linda Reynolds, a Liberal senator for Western Australia, employed both Lehrmann and Higgins during the period of the alleged rape, and it was in her office that Higgins alleges it took place in March 2019.
Higgins, along with her partner, former journalist and public servant David Sharaz, have been publicly critical of Reynolds’ handling of the matter, with Sharaz tweeting about Reynolds in December 2022.
Reynolds filed defamation proceedings against Sharaz in relation to the tweets in January 2023, as well as in July against Higgins relating to Higgins’ public criticism of her.
Judges presiding over the case have urged the parties to pursue mediation proceedings, warning of the “human cost of litigation”.
“No one should imagine they can remain immune from the psychological stress and emotional pain of litigation of this nature. The human cost too can be crippling, sometimes insurmountable,” said Justice Marcus Solomon.
Reynolds’ defamation proceedings against Higgins and Sharaz are next set for a strategic conference in the WA Supreme Court on November 8.
Wilkinson v Network Ten
Lisa Wilkinson, despite the fact her defamation case with Lehrmann is ongoing, has taken to suing her employer, Network Ten, for costs of the legal bills involved in running the case.
Network Ten keeps commercial law firm Thomson Geer on retainer, but Wilkinson opted to engage the services of boutique firm Gillis Delaney, as well as leading defamation barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC.
Despite this, Wilkinson claims Ten accepted responsibility for her costs, which it says already total more than $700,000.
In the Supreme Court this week, Matt Collins KC, appearing for Ten, said the two parties were taking a cooperative approach to costs and ought to be focusing on the actual defamation trial on November 22.
Correction: A previous version of this article said a jury was unable to reach a verdict in Bruce Lehrmann’s rape trial. The story has been updated to reflect the fact that the jury was later discharged and a mistrial declared due to a juror’s misconduct.
