What we heard today
Today we heard closing arguments from Network Ten’s barrister, Matt Collins SC, and Wilkinson’s barrister, Sue Chrysanthou SC.
A recap: Bruce Lehrmann is suing Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson for defamation over an interview with Higgins broadcast on The Project and online which did not name him but alleged she had been raped by a Liberal staffer in March 2019.
Lehrmann has denied raping Brittany Higgins and pleaded not guilty to a charge of sexual intercourse without consent. His criminal trial was abandoned due to juror misconduct and the second did not proceed due to prosecutors’ fears for Higgins’ mental health.
Here’s what we heard:
Collins told the court he would show Lehrmann was “revealed to be a fundamentally dishonest man who was prepared to say or do anything he perceived to advance his interests”. He said if Justice Lee was persuaded there was sexual intercourse in Parliament House that night “then what has happened in this trial is monstrous – absolutely monstrous” as Lehrmann brought a defamation case on a “fundamentally false premise”.
Collins said Lehmann’s demeanour in the witness box was “combative and defensive” and Justice Lee should “approach the entirety of his evidence with extreme suspicion”.
Collins said one theory of the applicant that Higgins “monstrously fabricated a rape allegation in order to save her job” was “utterly incoherent for a number of reasons”.
Collins said that television is “transient” and the words said at the beginning of The Project story about there being a “roadblock” to reporting a rape should not be taken too literally.
Justice Lee has expressed his opinion on Lisa Wilkinson’s Logies speech, saying it “should have been obvious to anyone that that’s the sort of thing that shouldn’t be said eight days before a criminal trial starts”.
Chrysanthou said Wilkinson “had no decision-making power as to the final content of the broadcast”.
Chrysanthou has said the way Lehrmann chose to approach Brittany Higgins’ allegations by “denying sex” occurred made the case “so much more antagonistic”.
Chrysanthou has said there “can’t be any doubt in anyone’s mind that there was sex”, adding: “the only issue that would trouble your honour, having regard to the unsatisfactory state of the evidence by both persons, is the consent issue”.
Chrysanthou questioned why Lehrmann took 40 minutes to write briefing notes while in parliament on the night of the alleged rape, and claimed he was “ignoring the phone calls from his girlfriend because he was having sex with Ms Higgins”.
The trial will resume tomorrow when Lehrmann’s lawyer is expected to give closing arguments.
Updated
Wilkinson’s lawyer questions why Higgins was found naked if no sex had occurred
Chrysanthou has questioned – given the evidence that Higgins was found naked in Parliament House – if Higgins and Lehrmann didn’t have sex, “why was she naked?”
“I haven’t checked the weather for that day, but unless there was some sort of freak heatwave in Canberra at the end of March and the air conditioning wasn’t working well in Parliament House, it just seems unusual that she had had no clothes on, and on balance, your honour would be satisfied that there was sex that occurred,” Chrysanthou.
Chrysanthou has also pointed out that, contrary to what Lehrmann told the police, Fiona Brown’s affidavit shows that Lehrmann told Brown he had “chatted” to Higgins before he left.
“Contrary to the evidence he’s given to your honour and contrary to what he told the police, he did have interaction with Ms Higgins according to those admissions and did see her before he left. Whereas his evidence is he went left, she went right. He never saw her again. So on his own evidence that’s used on his behalf in the trial, that’s not true,” Chrysanthou said.
Updated
