Defence lawyers in the Bruce Lehrmann defamation trial have used their closing arguments to describe the former Liberal staffer as a “fundamentally dishonest man”, suggesting his repeated mistruths about the events of March 2019 suggest he might be a “compulsive liar”.
Lisa Wilkinson’s lawyer also told the court there “can’t be any doubt in anyone’s mind that there was sex” on the night Brittany Higgins was allegedly raped.
“The only issue that would trouble your honour, having regard to the unsatisfactory state of the evidence by both persons, is the consent issue,” Wilkinson’s barrister, Sue Chrysanthou SC, said.
The Lehrmann defamation trial is now in its final stages. The court on Thursday heard closing submissions from media defendants Network Ten and Wilkinson.
Lehrmann is suing both over a 2021 interview with Higgins broadcast on The Project which he says defamed him by accusing him of raping Higgins in the office of their then boss, defence industry minister Linda Reynolds.
Lehrmann has repeatedly denied the allegation and says no sex whatsoever took place.
But Chrysanthou said sex was the only rational explanation for why Lehrmann went with Higgins to Parliament House in the early hours of the morning, after a night of drinking in Canberra.
“There’s no other rational reason for them to go there. On balance, and your honour would be satisfied, that was his purpose,” she said.
Both Chrysanthou and Matt Collins KC, representing Network Ten, highlighted a series of lies they allege Lehrmann told.
Both also conceded there were issues with Higgins’ credibility but say she delivered a powerful and consistent account of the alleged rape itself.
Collins told the court that Lehrmann was “revealed to be a fundamentally dishonest man who was prepared to say or do anything he perceived to advance his interests”.
He pointed to Lehrmann’s alleged lies about being attracted to Higgins, buying drinks for her at the Dock bar in Canberra, encouraging her to drink and “skol” a drink, touching and kissing her at a later venue, the 88mph nightclub, telling parliament security he had been instructed to pick up documents, and then telling his boss Fiona Brown he was there to drink whiskey.
Chrysanthou also alleged Lehrmann lied about needing to return to the office to make notes of a conversation about submarines he had had with unidentified defence bureaucrats at the Dock.
“Why did it take him 40 minutes to write the submarine notes? I mean, he couldn’t remember what it was that was so important. What was it that took 40 minutes to write down?” Chrysanthou said.
She alleged he also lied about missing a series of phone calls from his girlfriend about the time of the alleged rape.
Lehrmann has said he missed the calls because his phone was face-down and on silent during the 40 minutes he was in the office doing work.
“[That] is hard to accept having regard to the attachment he clearly had to his phone as seen from all the footage, so we say that’s another lie, that he was ignoring the phone calls from his girlfriend because he was having sex with Ms Higgins,” Chrysanthou said.
Collins says if Justice Michael Lee was persuaded sexual intercourse occurred “then what has happened in this trial is monstrous – absolutely monstrous”.
It was monstrous, Collins said, because it meant Lehrmann had brought a defamation case on a “fundamentally false premise” and “allowed the complainant to be cross-examined on that false premise over days freed from the constraints that might protect her in a criminal trial”.
He also told the court that the theory that Higgins fabricated the rape allegation to protect her job was incoherent.
“That theory, with respect to a friend, is utterly incoherent for a number of reasons,” he said. “First, as your honour heard from Ms Brown just two days ago, Ms Higgins’ job was never at risk.”
Lee gave an indication that he thought there were issues of credit with both Lehrmann and Higgins. He said that “various parts” of their evidence “simply can’t be accepted”.
He also said it should have been obvious to anyone that Wilkinson should not have given her infamous speech to the Logies eight days out from the criminal trial. The speech caused a delay to the trial, though Wilkinson, in her affidavit, said she had sought the advice of the ACT’s then director of public prosecutions Shane Drumgold before making it and was later applauded by Network Ten’s chief executive Beverley McGarvey for a “beautiful speech”.
Ten and Wilkinson are relying on the defences of truth and qualified privilege.
They argue the imputation that Lehrmann raped Higgins is substantially true and because defamation proceedings are civil matters, rather than criminal, the standard of proof is different.
Under the qualified privilege defence, Ten and Wilkinson must prove the program was in the public interest and they acted reasonably.
Lehrmann maintains his innocence and pleaded not guilty to one charge of sexual intercourse without consent.
In December, prosecutors dropped charges against Lehrmann for the alleged rape of Higgins, saying a retrial would pose an “unacceptable risk” to her health. The first trial was abandoned due to juror misconduct.
The case continues on Friday in the federal court.
