Bruce Lehrmann appeal judgment | December 3, 2025 - video Dailymotion

The Canberra Times

Bruce Lehrmann has lost his appeal against a civil finding that he raped Brittany Higgins inside Parliament House.

Transcript

00:0015 February 2021, Network 10 Proprietary Limited broadcast a special edition of the project.

00:07The broadcast was presented by Ms Lisa Wilkinson, an experienced journalist.

00:13The broadcast concerned, among other things, a claim that Ms Brittany Higgins, a member of staff

00:19of a federal minister, had been sexually assaulted by a senior work colleague on a couch in the

00:25minister's office in Parliament House. The colleague was later identified to be Mr Bruce

00:30Learman. The broadcast was republished on the project's YouTube channel and the 10 Play

00:37website. Mr Learman brought defamation proceedings in this court against Network 10 and Ms Wilkinson.

00:45He claimed that the broadcast conveyed four imputations, the defamatory sting of which was

00:49that he had raped Ms Higgins. Network 10 and Ms Wilkinson defended Mr Learman's claim.

00:56The principal defence was one of justification or substantial truth. The defence hinged on

01:03them, that is Network 10 and Ms Wilkinson, proving on the balance of probabilities that

01:09Mr Learman had in fact raped Ms Higgins. Following a lengthy trial, the primary judge upheld Network

01:1610 and Ms Wilkinson's truth defence. His honour found that Mr Learman had engaged in non-consensual

01:23sexual intercourse with Ms Higgins in circumstances that involved, quote, non-advertent recklessness,

01:30close quote, on the part of Mr Learman as to whether Ms Higgins had consented. Those actions fell

01:37within the ordinary meaning of rape. The primary judge also made a provisional determination in

01:44relation to damages on the assumption that, contrary to the findings that he had made,

01:48Network 10 and Ms Wilkinson's defences had failed, and Mr Learman had succeeded in proving

01:54that he had been defamed. His honour's provisional assessment of the appropriate damages was $20,000

02:00in total. Mr Learman brought an appeal. He essentially advanced four grounds of appeal. First, he asserted that

02:09the trial had been conducted in a way that was procedurally unfair to him because the details of the rape as found by the

02:15primary judge were different to the details that had been alleged by Network 10 and Ms Wilkinson on the basis of the

02:22truth defence. He alleged those details were of a forceful and violent rape, not a rape constituted by non-violent

02:30sexual intercourse with mere inadvertent recklessness as to consent, as found by the primary judge. Second, and

02:38relatedly, Mr Learman claimed that the publications would have conveyed to the ordinary reasonable viewer of the

02:47program that the rape in question was a violent rape with expressed lack of consent, as distinct from non-consensual sex that

02:53occurred in the circumstances as found by the primary judge. Third, he contended that the primary judge erred in finding that net

03:00work 10 and Ms Wilkinson had discharged the burden of proof in respect of the rape. He submitted that his

03:06honour should have, should instead have concluded that he was not able to make a finding one way or another as to

03:12whether Mr Learman had raped Ms Higgins. Finally, Mr Learman argued that his claim should have succeeded and the

03:20damages award in his favour should be much more than $20,000. As explained in detail in the reasons for

03:28judgment which will be published shortly, the full court has determined to dismiss Mr Learman's appeal with costs.

03:34The court has found that the primary judge did not err in any of the ways alleged by Mr Learman in his

03:40grounds of appeal and his submissions in support of them. The full court has found that the way in

03:47which the primary judge dealt with and determined the proceedings was not procedurally unfair to Mr Learman.

03:57The facts as found by the primary judge fell within the terms of network 10 and Ms Wilkinson's pleaded

04:02truth defence. Mr Learman was also well and truly aware that the case against him included a claim that he

04:09had been reckless as to Ms Higgins consent. As for Mr Learman's claim concerning the meaning conveyed by

04:16the publications, the sting of the imputations conveyed by the publications was that Mr Learman had

04:22raped Ms Higgins. The full court has found that the ordinary reasonable viewer of the broadcast would

04:29understand rape as involving sexual intercourse occurring without the consent of the person,

04:35the victim, with the other person, the perpetrator, either knowing that the victim is not consenting

04:41or being reckless as to whether they are consenting. Recklessness in that context encompasses the

04:47perpetrator not caring whether the victim is consenting, either as a conscious lack of regard for

04:52whether the person is consenting or complete indifference as to whether they are consenting.

04:57The full court has found that the primary judge's factual findings concerning Mr Learman's actions

05:02fell within the ordinary meaning of rape. The full court has also rejected Mr Learman's contention

05:09that the primary judge erred in finding that Network 10 and Ms Wilkinson had discharged the

05:14burden of proving that he had raped Ms Higgins. This was not a case where there were two competing

05:22accounts, each of which had been found to lack any credibility. While the primary judge made some

05:27adverse findings concerning the credibility of Ms Higgins account, his honour nevertheless accepted

05:33key parts of her evidence about the sexual assault. In contrast, the primary judge rejected the

05:40entirety of Mr Learman's account and found that he had deliberately lied in important respects.

05:46In those circumstances, it was well open to the primary judge to find that Network 10 and Ms Wilkinson had

05:51proved to the requisite civil standard that Mr Learman had raped Ms Higgins. The full court has also

05:59accepted a contention advanced by Network 10 and Ms Wilkinson that, on the facts as found by the

06:05primary judge, his honour should have concluded that Mr Learman knew that Ms Higgins did not consent to

06:11having sexual intercourse. The full court has found, based on the unchallenged findings made by the

06:18primary judge, that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the facts known and observable to

06:23Mr Learman at the time he had sexual intercourse with Ms Higgins is that Mr Learman did turn his mind

06:30to whether Ms Higgins consented to sex, was aware that she was not consenting, but proceeded nonetheless.

06:37The acceptance of that contention provides another basis for upholding the primary judge's finding

06:42that Mr Learman raped Ms Higgins and that the truth defence pleaded by Network 10 and Ms Wilkinson

06:48had been made out. Given the findings made concerning Mr Learman's grounds of appeal concerning

06:54the truth defence, the full court considered that it was unnecessary to consider his arguments

06:59concerning damages. It was also unnecessary to consider Network 10 and Ms Wilkinson's contentions

07:06concerning the provisional assessment of damages. The full court has also found that it was neither

07:11necessary nor appropriate to give detailed consideration to the arguments advanced by Ms Wilkinson

07:17in support of her contention that if Mr Learman's appeal in relation to the truth defence was upheld,

07:22the primary judge should have should have upheld her separate defence of qualified privilege.

07:27That defence was based on the contention that the publications concerned a matter of public interest

07:32and that Ms Wilkinson's conduct was reasonable in the circumstances. Some aspects of those contentions

07:38have however been addressed in the full court's reasons for judgment. Can I just emphasise again

07:44that this judgment summary which I've just read out is not intended to be a substitute for the

07:50detailed reasons for judgment of the court that I'm about to publish.

07:54The orders of the court as follows. One, the appeal is dismissed. Two, the appellant pay the

08:02respondents costs of the appeal. I publish the full court's reasons for judgment.

08:10Unless there's anything further I'll have the court adjourned.

Bruce Lehrmann appeal judgment | December 3, 2025

Category

Transcript

Be the first to comment

Recommended