What we heard in court today
Today Lisa Wilkinson gave evidence in court about how she first heard Brittany Higgins story – and the process she and The Project team took to report it.
Here’s what we heard from her this afternoon – to read the full run-down of what she said this morning, click here.
Wilkinson was cross-examined about the apparent contradiction between her belief there had been a systemic cover up by the government, and statements by Reynolds and Brown that they would support Higgins if she went to police. Justice Lee intervened to ask: “Do you think it’s consistent with the ‘systemic cover-up of a rape allegation’ for someone to escort someone to an AFP office?” Wilkinson did not answer the question directly but said the AFP officers were not trained in dealing with sexual assault victims and were the wrong people to take Higgins to.
At one point during cross examination, Wilkinson said: “I feel we investigated this story extremely well”.
Wilkinson was also asked to identify in the script of the broadcast what the “roadblocks to the police investigation” were. Richardson put to Wilkinson that the roadblocks she had identified were before the police investigation had begun.
Wilkinson denied a suggestion from Lehrmann’s barrister that she was “coaching” Higgins before the interview and that it was “inappropriate conduct for a journalist”.
The trial resumes again tomorrow.
Updated
Court finishes for the day
The hearing has ended for the day and Wilkinson will return to the witness box on Friday morning. Richardson said he had an estimated 90 minutes of cross-examination left to make.
The transcript of the covert Sky News recording of Higgins’ lawyer Leon Zwier speaking to her fiance, David Sharaz, has not yet been produced, the court heard earlier today.
There was no update by the end of the day.
The recordings were taken of Zwier and others at the Park Hyatt Lobby Bar on 4 December and reportedly revealed the lawyer discussing how Higgins could respond to questions in cross-examination in the trial.
Zwier has denied coaching his client through her fiance, and told news.com.au in a statement that his remarks were not intended to be passed on to Higgins.
Updated
Wilkinson denies ‘coaching’ Higgins during pre-interview
Wilkinson has denied a suggestion from Lehrmann’s barrister that she was “coaching” Higgins before the interview and that it was “inappropriate conduct for a journalist”.
Richardson took Wilkinson to the transcript of a pre-interview with Higgins where she said to her she didn’t want “to put words in your mouth” but on camera she should talk about the culture of Parliament House.
Richardson: “It was inappropriate conduct as a journalist.”
Wilkinson: “I disagree.”
Richardson later asked:
You knew that Ms Higgins didn’t have a convincing explanation for why she hadn’t pressed charges in 2019 that it could affect her credibility?
Wilkinson:
Apart from everything else, I needed to understand why she hadn’t proceeded with a police investigation so that that could be communicated to our audience.
Updated
Wilkinson asked to identify ‘roadblocks’ to police investigation in broadcast script
Wilkinson has been asked to identify in the script of the broadcast what the “roadblocks to the police investigation” were.
She has identified that one barrier was that there was no human resources department in Parliament House and another was that the AFP in Parliament House was an “inappropriate place” for Brown to take Higgins to report her alleged rape.
Wilkinson said another roadblock was that the “first person she spoke to was a political adviser who was not trained in taking the statement of a young woman who was alleging she had been sexually assaulted”.
Lehrmann’s barrister, Matthew Richardson SC, put to Wilkinson that the roadblocks she had identified were both before the police investigation had begun.
Wilkinson has been warned by Lee to “not worry about engaging in speeches” and just give her “shortest, truthful answer”.
Updated
Wilkinson: ‘I feel we investigated this story extremely well’
The court has returned from lunch, and Wilkinson is being cross-examined about the apparent contradiction between her belief there had been a systemic cover up by the government, and statements by Reynolds and Brown that they would support Higgins if she went to police.
Justice Lee intervened to ask: “Do you think it’s consistent with the ‘systemic cover-up of a rape allegation’ for someone to escort someone to an AFP office?”
Lee was referring to the day Brown escorted Higgins to the AFP office in the basement of Parliament House.
Wilkinson did not answer the question directly but said the AFP officers were not trained in dealing with sexual assault victims and were the wrong people to take Higgins to.
Richardson: “Did you think to ask [Higgins] if she was being told, ‘we will support you’, what it was that made her come to believe that going to the police was not feasible?”
Wilkinson: “The pressure she was feeling.”
Richardson: “Did you think to ask her what was actually causing the pressure? Did you see that as a potential problem with her allegation?”
Wilkinson: “No, I didn’t.”
Richardson: “[Was it] something that warranted further investigation Ms Wilkinson??
Wilkinson: “I feel we investigated this story extremely well Mr Richardson.”
Updated
What we’ve heard so far today
Today in the witness box the court has heard evidence from Ten journalist Lisa Wilkinson, going into details of her investigation and reporting of Brittany Higgins’ claims.
Bruce Lehrmann is suing Network Ten and 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 2019.
Lehrmann has denied raping 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’ve heard:
• The court was played Wilkinson’s Logies victory speech, made weeks before Lehrmann’s criminal trial. She denied a suggestion by Lehrmann’s lawyer, Matthew Richardson SC, that she had put her “pride and ego” ahead of his client’s right to a fair trial. “I completely disagree,” Wilkinson said.
• The judge, Justice Michael Lee, asked if that speech, and its reference to Higgins’ “unwavering courage”, implied that Wilkinson believed Higgins was telling the truth about her alleged rape. Wilkinson agreed that a woman would not be demonstrating unwavering courage if they were making a false allegation.
• Wilkinson explained that she didn’t think to investigate the metadata on a photograph of a bruise on Higgins’ leg because she “didn’t know what metadata was”. She said she didn’t ask for specific details about the bruise because conversations with survivors of sexual assault are “very difficult”. And she agreed some aspects of Higgins’ story about her mobile phone had raised “alarm bells”.
• Wilkinson denied being “entirely captured” by her source, Higgins and the “riveting commercial appeal” of her story. “Don’t make me sound like a cheap tabloid journalist,” Wilkinson retorted.
• Wilkinson explained why she believed there was “damage control” and an effort to keep the Higgins story “under wraps” within the prime minister’s office.
• She denied that Higgins’ account was unreliable or inconsistent, saying she was “attuned to reading between the lines”.
The hearing is due to resume at 2:15pm.
Updated
Wilkinson says she believed Fiona Brown and Linda Reynolds ‘would have been taking a lot of direction’ from PM’s office
Before the lunch break, Justice Michael Lee asked Wilkinson: “I’m trying to get to your understanding [at] the time the program was broadcast … you had the view, didn’t you, that Ms Brown and Senator Reynolds were involved in a systemic cover-up, or not? Were they participants in the systemic cover-up or not?”
Wilkinson: “I believe that they [were being] very, very careful in the lead up to a tightly contested election, and that they would have been taking a lot of direction from the prime minister’s office.”
The court has adjourned until 2.15pm.
Updated
Wilkinson denies Brittany Higgins’ account was unreliable
Wilkinson denies that Higgins’ account was unreliable or that there were inconsistencies in what Higgins said at different times about the conduct of Reynolds and Brown in handling her rape allegation.
Richardson said in Higgins’ timeline, Reynolds and Brown indicated they would be supportive if she went to police.
Wilkinson explained that she is “attuned to reading between the lines” so was not concerned about Higgins’ version of how she was treated by the Liberal party.
Wilkinson explained that Higgins may have been perceiving Reynolds’ and Brown’s words differently because of the political environment.
She said in Parliament House there were “so many people with so many agendas, and so many people scared of losing power”.
Richardson asked Wilkinson if she believed it was a “serious problem” that “the words that were actually said [by Reynolds and Brown] were different to what Ms Higgins was relaying to you”.
Wilkinson: “No … Maybe I’m just attuned to reading between the lines even more than you are, Mr Richardson.”
Updated
Wilkinson ‘reading between the lines’ over whether Higgins thought her job at risk
Wilkinson has said she was “reading between the lines” when she thought Higgins had to choose between staying in her job and making a criminal complaint of sexual assault.
“Again, we moved from the vagaries of primetime television to the vagaries of politics, Mr Richardson,” she said to Lehrmann’s lawyer.
I think that the words that were being said were possibly different to the way they were being perceived by a young, frightened political staffer, who understood that if she remained a team player and didn’t proceed with any kind of police report, she would be seen as a good soldier because she’d stayed silent.
Richardson:
What you’re doing, Ms Wilkinson, is drawing a distinction between what you believe Ms Higgins felt and what was actually said to her. Is that correct?
Wilkinson:
Yeah, I’m reading between the lines. That’s what we tend to do as journalists, to try and understand when you’re interviewing somebody.
Updated
Primetime TV viewers’ ‘short attention span’ behind decision to show only part of Fiona Brown’s message to Higgins, Wilkinson says
Wilkinson said primetime television viewers have a “short attention span” when she was asked why only part of a message from Higgins’ boss Fiona Brown was shown on the program.
Unfortunately, Mr Richardson, the vagaries of primetime television mean that there’s a fairly short attention span that viewers have for very, very long messages. So, this was just about the confirmation around Linda Reynolds wanting to catch up with Ms Higgins and organising a meeting.
Richardson asked why a part of the message, which said Higgins could bring her father to a meeting with Reynolds and Brown, was not shown.
Wilkinson said it was a “very quick screen grab [and] wasn’t relevant for viewers”.
Updated
Wilkinson says she believed PM’s office was doing a ‘lot of damage control’
Wilkinson said she believed there was a “lot of damage control going on within the prime minister’s office to keep this whole thing under wraps”.
Richardson asked what the basis was for her thinking there was a systemic cover-up.
Wilkinson: “When within days, two of the most senior advisers to prime minister Scott Morrison turned up in the office, you know that damage control is going on.
“Also the fact that she was just a junior staffer, and she was getting calls from senior members of Scott Morrison’s office on politically sensitive days for the Liberal party … checking in to make sure she’s OK.”
Updated
Wilkinson denies she had ‘no intention of challenging’ Brittany Higgins
Wilkinson has denied she was “entirely captured” by her source, Higgins, and had no intention of challenging her.
The suggestion by Richardson came after the court heard Wilkinson sent Higgins a text after her interview saying she “did something truly magnificent today”.
“Thank you for trusting us,” the text said. “I promise that we are going to do everything in our power to ensure that this will bring change, please be incredibly proud.”
Richardson: “Ms Wilkinson, I want to suggest to you that you were completely committed to supporting Ms Higgins. You had no intention of challenging her on anything she said.”
Wilkinson: “I totally disagree.”
Richardson: “You had no desire to check or scrutinise anything she said.”
Wilkinson: “I totally disagree.”
Richardson: “You were entirely captured by your source. Weren’t you? You were thrilled by the riveting commercial appeal of the story that she told.”
Wilkinson: “Don’t make me sound like a cheap tabloid journalist, Mr Richardson.”
Updated
And here is Bruce Lehrmann arriving at court today with his legal team:
Updated
Here is Lisa Wilkinson, arriving at court today with her barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC.
Updated
Wilkinson agrees problems with Higgins’ phone raised ‘alarm bells’
Wilkinson has been taken to a note she sent to her producer Angus Llewellyn where she raised the alarm about the technical issues Higgins had with her phone and whether she still had access to crucial messages.
“I need to know what Vodafone is saying about her phone going into black and if she says she took screenshots of crucial messages she now no longer has,” Wilkinson said in the note read in court.
“How come she still has the bruise shot? I’m confused on this point. And why is she delaying, or at least appears to be delaying, getting answers on that, without raising alarm bells with her [Higgins]?”
Wilkinson agreed that the problems with Higgins’ phone raised “alarm bells” and she discussed the issue with Llewellyn over the phone, but he was the only one in contact with Higgins.
Wilkinson: “I didn’t understand what Ms Higgins was saying, Mr Richardson. I was confused by it all.”
Updated
A warning for readers: this blog post contains graphic details of allegations of sexual assault.
Wilkinson said she did not ask Higgins for specific details about what caused the large pressure bruise on her leg, but she had her own theory.
Wilkinson: “What I imagined – and my apologies to anybody listening, because this is quite graphic – but in my mind, I imagined if Mr Lehrmann had spread the legs of a woman open, that leg would be pressing down on the lounge and that bruise was the shape of the edge of a lounge.”
Richardson: “But you didn’t ask her if that’s what had happened?”
Wilkinson: “No, Mr Richardson, not at that point … Ms Higgins was upset at various points in this meeting. She was talking about her own sexual assault, and if you’ve ever spoken to survivors of sexual assault, these are very difficult conversations to have. There was a lot more that needed to be done before [the broadcast of] anything that was discussed in this five-plus hours of conversation that we were having.”
Updated
Wilkinson says she did not know what metadata was when first shown Higgins’ bruise photo
Wilkinson has her own silk – separate to the first respondent, Network Ten – and is being represented by Sue Chrysanthou SC.
The journalist is being asked about Higgins’ technical problems with her phone and whether messages and photographs had been wiped after Higgins resigned from her job.
Wilkinson said she didn’t fully understand what Higgins was saying about her phone in the preliminary conversation she had with her. She said she remembers Higgins showing her a photograph of a bruise on her leg and being told it was taken a few days after the alleged assault.
Richardson: “And you knew that Ms Higgins was putting forward this photograph of a bruise as contemporaneous physical evidence of her assault.”
Wilkinson: “That was what she was alleging, yes.”
Richardson: “It was important, wasn’t it?”
Wilkinson: “Well, yes, we were gathering information at that point.”
Wilkinson said she did not check whether the photograph of the bruise had any metadata (data attached to the photo’s digital file) that could show when it was taken.
Wilkinson: “Mr Richardson, I have to be honest with you, I am not tech-savvy at all. I didn’t know what metadata was, at that point.”
Updated
Lisa Wilkinson questioned over Logies victory speech
In her Logies speech, which was played to the court, Wilkinson said Higgins “was a political problem and governments tend to like political problems to go away”.
But Brittany never did. And the truth is, this honour belongs to Brittany. It belongs to a 26-year-old woman’s unwavering courage. It belongs to a woman who said ‘enough’. It belongs to a woman who inspired more than 100,000 similarly pissed off, exhausted, fierce women and men to take to the streets right across this country to roar in numbers too big to ignore.
Richardson asked Wilkinson if she agreed that in her Logies speech, she expressed “a fervent belief in [Higgins] and what she’s saying” when she spoke of her “unwavering courage”.
Wilkinson: “I didn’t say that in that speech, Mr Richardson.”
Justice Michael Lee then interjected to ask Wilkinson if her Logies victory speech – made weeks before the criminal trial – implied she believed Higgins was telling the truth.
Lee: “Would you accept that a woman would not be demonstrating unwavering courage if she was making a false allegation of rape against an innocent man.”
Wilkinson: “Yes.”
Updated
Lisa Wilkinson denies that she put her ‘pride and ego’ ahead of Bruce Lehrmann’s right to fair trial
Wilkinson is being asked questions by Lehrmann’s barrister, Matthew Richardson SC, who asks if she has been trained in sub judice contempt law (the rules during a current or impending trial).
Wilkinson says no, she has not had training in contempt.
The court has been played Wilkinson’s Logies speech about her Brittany Higgins interview, and she has been asked whether the speech was “reckless and ill advised”.
Richardson: “I want to suggest to you that you put your pride and your ego ahead of my client’s right to a fair trial when you gave that speech.”
Wilkinson: “I completely disagree.”
Updated
Court weighs up options to allow Fiona Brown to give evidence
Before Wilkinson entered the witness box, the court dealt with another key witness and the question of whether she would give evidence.
Fiona Brown, the former chief of staff to Senator Linda Reynolds, is “an important witness” whose evidence is likely to be heard next week following the conclusion of Wilkinson’s evidence, Justice Michael Lee said.
A barrister representing Brown told Lee that his client is willing to assist the court and is finalising her affidavit, but is not in good health. Brown has submitted two medical reports: one from a psychiatrist and one from a psychologist.
“If a witness is suffering some difficulties in attending court but does wish to assist, then, like with any witness in the case, I’m going to be cognisant of that and try to accommodate to the extent that I can,” Lee said.
One option Lee is considering is whether to allow Brown to give her evidence but to disable the federal court’s YouTube live stream.
Updated
Lisa Wilkinson enters witness box in court
Lisa Wilkinson has entered the witness box on day 15 of the defamation suit brought by Bruce Lehrmann.
The television host, author and magazine editor is the second respondent in the case and has attended the Sydney court every day.
Updated
Federal court continues to livestream the case
This blog will cover major developments during the day. In the interests of open justice and due to significant public interest, the federal court is livestreaming this case.
You can watch the Bruce Lehrmann defamation trial live stream on YouTube here.
What we can expect today
Lisa Wilkinson, who is second respondent to the defamation suit brought by Bruce Lehrmann, is due in the witness box at the federal court today for the start of what is expected to be a two-day evidence session.
Lehrmann is suing Wilkinson and her employer Network Ten over an interview with Brittany Higgins broadcast on The Project in 2021, which he alleges defamed him by suggesting he raped Higgins in 2019.
In December, ACT prosecutors dropped charges against Lehrmann for the alleged rape of Higgins, saying a retrial would pose an “unacceptable risk” to her health.
Lehrmann has always denied the allegation. He had pleaded not guilty to one charge of sexual intercourse without consent, denying that any sexual activity had occurred.
The trial, which heard from 29 witnesses over almost three weeks, was abandoned after a juror brought in outside research papers on sexual assault.
In this civil trial Wilkinson is relying on the defence of justification. In other words, she will argue that the imputation that Lehrmann raped Higgins is substantially true.
Wilkinson is also raising an earlier form of the public interest defence, where journalists and publishers have to prove they acted reasonably.
Justice Michael Lee may also deal with the fallout from the so-called “secret” recording of Higgins’ lawyer speaking to Higgins’ fiance, David Sharaz, at a Sydney bar.
The covert audio was aired on Sky News Australia, which reported that it revealed Leon Zwier and others at the Park Hyatt Lobby Bar on 4 December discussing how Higgins could respond to questions in cross-examination (Higgins herself was not said to be present).
Wilkinson’s producer on the story, Angus Llewellyn, has already been cross-examined, including about whether the program checked the credibility of what Higgins told them before the interview aired.
Yesterday, the court published texts which revealed Wilkinson believed The Project had an “explosive political story” in the Higgins interview.
She pitched to Llewellyn an “extraordinary cover-up”, but Llewellyn admitted in court he did not have proof of some of the claims.
The Project claimed in a 2021 broadcast that Higgins was “forced to choose between her career and the pursuit of justice” after she was allegedly raped on senator Linda Reynolds’ couch in Parliament House.
Llewellyn said yesterday: “I didn’t have proof … I did not have proof.”
Updated
