The court found that he committed sexual assault as per the civil standards of proof
The Federal Court has dismissed the defamation lawsuit filed by Bruce Lehrmann against Network Ten Pty Limited and Lisa Wilkinson.
This case, linked to an episode of Network Ten’s The Project program, stems from allegations and the public discourse surrounding a sexual assault claim. The court's decision, which was focused on the nuances of legal proofs and public narratives, found that Lehrmann, though not criminally convicted, engaged in conduct constituting sexual assault against Brittany Higgins.
Lehrmann was a policy advisor to Linda Reynolds CSC, then-assistant minister for Home Affairs. Higgins was an administrative officer and junior media advisor in Reynolds’ office.
The court’s judgment clarified the distinction between criminal and civil liabilities, emphasising that while the criminal case remained inconclusive, the civil proceedings necessitated a lesser degree of certainty. The Federal Court delivered maintained a neutral and detailed approach, acknowledging the complexities of human memory and testimonial reliability which played a crucial role in the proceedings.
The controversy, which has captured public and media attention, was described by the judge as an “omnishambles,” noting that for many, the case transcended the personal allegations to symbolize broader cultural and political battles. This sentiment was echoed in the judge’s observation of how people's pre-existing beliefs about sexual assault and political conspiracies might colour their perceptions of the case.
Throughout the trial, the court found both Lehrmann and Higgins presented challenges in terms of credibility. The court noted Lehrmann’s questionable adherence to truth, influenced by his perceived forensic advantages, and Higgins’ statements, which, while rallying support from certain groups, raised questions about her overall reliability.
Further complicating the trial was the notion of a systemic cover-up, suggested to have obstructed the pursuit of justice. This allegation, however, was deemed to lack sufficient factual backing, characterised as speculative and inconsistent. Despite these issues, the court’s decision underscored the essential legal principle that a person's liberty should only be curtailed if their guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt—a standard not met in the criminal proceedings against Lehrmann.
In conclusion, the court dismissed Lehrmann's defamation claim, thereby legally endorsing the respondents' portrayal of the events as truthful under civil standards. The court highlighted the critical differences between criminal and civil adjudications, demonstrating the judiciary's cautious approach to avoid convicting the innocent while acknowledging the victims of unproven but plausible wrongful acts.
