Speaker 1: From The Australian. Here's what's on the front. I'm Claire Harvey.
Speaker 1: It's Tuesday, October fifteen. King Charles hits Australia on Friday,
Speaker 1: but there's a dispute over whether he really holds the
Speaker 1: title King of Australia. The government has agreed to pass
Speaker 1: special legislation enabling the title, but it won't happen before
Speaker 1: he arrives. Another Sydney restaurant owner has shared anti Semitic material,
Speaker 1: this time an image of an Israeli soldier in the
Speaker 1: form of a pig. Those stories alive now at the
Speaker 1: Australian dot com dot au. Bruce Lemmon has no money
Speaker 1: and the only way he could pay costs for an
Speaker 1: appeal is something silly like going on only fans. That's
Speaker 1: the argument made in the Federal Court on Monday by
Speaker 1: a lawyer for Lamon, who comeback for an attempt to
Speaker 1: clear his name today. Why Lherman says it's his right
Speaker 1: to appeal.
Speaker 2: Having escaped the lines dead, Mister Lehman made the mistake
Speaker 2: of coming back for his heat.
Speaker 1: After a Federal Court judge makes this joke at your expense,
Speaker 1: you'd think you may hesitate to go again. But Bruce
Speaker 1: Lahmon is back, and this time he's fighting to have
Speaker 1: the full bench of the Federal Court overturn Justice Michael
Speaker 1: Lee's finding that, on the balance of probabilities he raped
Speaker 1: Brittany Higgins. He's also seeking to delay payment of the
Speaker 1: two million dollars Justice Lee ordered him to hand over
Speaker 1: to Network Ten.
Speaker 3: Mister Lehman is arguably probably Australia's most hated man.
Speaker 1: These are the words spoken in a Federal court on
Speaker 1: Monday by Zally Burrows, a barrister representing Bruce Lamman. We've
Speaker 1: used a voice actor.
Speaker 3: He's a young man, he's got his whole life behind
Speaker 3: him and he really does need his day in court
Speaker 3: to basically defend this charge of being labeled a rapist.
Speaker 3: Even though it's on a civil standard. He's forever going
Speaker 3: to be on the Internet and will be labeled a
Speaker 3: rapist and people don't know the difference between a criminal
Speaker 3: standard or civil standard.
Speaker 1: This hearing is not the appeal. It's two applications heard
Speaker 1: before trial. The first is an application by the defendants
Speaker 1: Network ten and Lisa Wilkinson seeking security for costs. That is,
Speaker 1: they want the court to order Laman to put two
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars in an account. During the hearing on Monday,
Speaker 1: Matt Collins CAC, the barrister for Network ten, reduced that
Speaker 1: figure to one hundred and eighty thousand dollars, estimating the
Speaker 1: appeal would take two days to hear. But everyone agrees
Speaker 1: Lamman doesn't have anything like that amount of money.
Speaker 4: We don't understand there to be any controversy between the
Speaker 4: parties that mister Lehman is impecunious and the effect of
Speaker 4: an order for security for costs would likely be to
Speaker 4: stultify the hearing of the appeal.
Speaker 1: In other words, that would be the end of the case.
Speaker 1: Lahman's lawyer, Zali Burrows says that would be an unfair
Speaker 1: denial of his right to appeal.
Speaker 3: It's a bit rich in asking him to put up
Speaker 3: two hundred thousand dollars when they are one of the
Speaker 3: contributors as to why he is pretty much unemployable. The
Speaker 3: only shot he'd probably ever be making money is by
Speaker 3: going on only fans or something silly like that.
Speaker 1: For his part, Bruce Lemmon is telling the court the
Speaker 1: reason he is impecunious, that he is penniless is that
Speaker 1: his reputation and job prospects have been destroyed by media
Speaker 1: reporting about Brittany Higgins allegations. Remember, Lahman has a never
Speaker 1: been convicted in a criminal court. He was charged and
Speaker 1: went trial in the Act, but the trial was aborted
Speaker 1: with no verdict because of Dura misconduct. The Act's Director
Speaker 1: of Public Prosecutions declined to bring on another trial, saying
Speaker 1: Brittney Higgins's mental health was too fragile. Lahman's lawyers have
Speaker 1: told the court he effectively lost his job with British
Speaker 1: American Tobacco on February fifteen, twenty twenty one, the day
Speaker 1: Brittney higgins allegations were first published by news dot com
Speaker 1: dore U and then later that day by Network ten
Speaker 1: on its show The Project, But neither Ten nor News
Speaker 1: dot Com doree U named Laman. Ten is arguing that
Speaker 1: it wasn't until August, when police charged him with sexual
Speaker 1: assault without consent, that Lahman's name went into the public domain.
Speaker 4: The substantive cause of mister Lehman's impecuniosity in our submission
Speaker 4: must logically arise from the fact that he was subsequently
Speaker 4: charged with rape and then named.
Speaker 1: In other words, says Ten, we didn't name him, so
Speaker 1: we're not responsible for his lack of a job. Matt
Speaker 1: Collins told the court ten served Bruce Lemmon with a
Speaker 1: bankruptcy notice electronically on twenty fifth of July twenty twenty
Speaker 1: four and in person by a process server who tracked
Speaker 1: him down on August five. Laman's lawyer denies that. She
Speaker 1: says ten unsuccessfully attempted to serve the notice on Lahman's mother.
Speaker 1: Colin said ten doesn't have any expectation that Laman has
Speaker 1: two million dollars lying around.
Speaker 4: I think we are frankly all proceeding on the basis
Speaker 4: that there'll never be any recovery. But that's just an
Speaker 4: assumption on our part. Only when a trustee in bankruptcy
Speaker 4: gets in and looks at mister Lehman's affairs will we
Speaker 4: have some clarityll.
Speaker 1: Burrows, barrister for Bruce Lahman, says Tenant tried to name
Speaker 1: and shame Laman in relation to another rape charge. He
Speaker 1: is now facing a claim that he raped a woman
Speaker 1: into Woomba, which is yet to be heard. Laman has
Speaker 1: not yet entered a plea, but he is likely to
Speaker 1: defend that charge.
Speaker 3: My client is on a centerlink income and he won't
Speaker 3: be able to meet a security of costs order.
Speaker 1: Burrows noted Laerman had won settlements of around two hundred
Speaker 1: thousand dollars from other publishers.
Speaker 3: Now, if Channel ten were making a commercial decision, you
Speaker 3: would think that they would be wanting to offer something similar.
Speaker 3: If this was all about money. The security of costs
Speaker 3: for about two hundred thousand dollars is a bit disingenuous
Speaker 3: when basically they would make that on advertising revenue just
Speaker 3: reporting on these proceedings.
Speaker 1: She said, two hundred thousand just was not a lot
Speaker 1: of money to Network ten.
Speaker 3: This application for security of costs is pretty much a
Speaker 3: bullying tactic just to hard fisted and shut down this
Speaker 3: appeal because they know my client will not be able
Speaker 3: to come up with two hundred thousand dollars at all.
Speaker 1: Burrow said Lahman's mental health had suffered from the negative
Speaker 1: publicity and that he was watching the live stream of
Speaker 1: the hearing rather than showing up in person because he
Speaker 1: was scared of what she called the media onslaught and
Speaker 1: assault outside court.
Speaker 3: The effect of all this is that it really really
Speaker 3: has smashed my client.
Speaker 1: Lherman is making his appeal on four grounds.
Speaker 4: The first two are hopeless.
Speaker 1: Colin said three and four are extraordinarily weak, but not hopeless.
Speaker 4: Mister Lhirman has had his day in court, more than
Speaker 4: a day in court, twenty six days in court in
Speaker 4: circumstances where factual findings went against him and no novel
Speaker 4: or important questions of law arise.
Speaker 1: Collins is also arguing that there's no public interest in
Speaker 1: the continuation of the proceedings.
Speaker 4: He brought the proceeding. Of course, the findings are devastating
Speaker 4: to mister Lahman, but that doesn't mean that the reversal
Speaker 4: of those findings serve some broader public interest. He's had
Speaker 4: his day in court. He had a very expensive trial.
Speaker 4: It was conducted in the full glare of the entire nation.
Speaker 4: He was very ably represented, and his honor has made
Speaker 4: findings at the end of the day of the kind
Speaker 4: that civil courts make every day of the week.
Speaker 1: Here's what Sukrasanthu, SC. Council for Lisa Wilkinson said about that.
Speaker 5: He chose to ender the fray. He walked over the
Speaker 5: line and asked this court, knowing the likelihood that my
Speaker 5: client and Network ten would plead truth. Mister Lahman has
Speaker 5: had his day in court. His impecuniosity did not deprive
Speaker 5: him of having his day in court, and he's had it,
Speaker 5: why should he get another day in court?
Speaker 1: Coming up the question of whether Bruce Lammon was reckless.
Speaker 1: That's after the break. One of Bruce Lammon's submissions, one
Speaker 1: of the two Matt Collins says are hopeless, is that
Speaker 1: Justice Lee made a mistake in finding that Bruce Lammon
Speaker 1: was recklessly indifferent to whether or not Brittany Higgins consented.
Speaker 2: So I'm satisfied that it is more likely than not
Speaker 2: that mister Lehman's state of mind was such that he
Speaker 2: was so intent upon gratification to be indifferent to Miss
Speaker 2: Higgins's consent, and hence where head was sexual intercourse without
Speaker 2: caring whether she consented. He's pursuit of gratification here one
Speaker 2: way or the other, whether Miss Higgins understood or agreed
Speaker 2: to what was going on.
Speaker 1: Lahman says this is unfair because this question of reckless
Speaker 1: indifference to Higgins's consent was never put to him in
Speaker 1: cross examination. Colin's on Monday took the court to a
Speaker 1: part of the cross examination from November twenty twenty three,
Speaker 1: using this to explain why he never directly asked Laman
Speaker 1: whether he obtained Higgins's consent. Here's that cross examination with
Speaker 1: Matt Collins questioning Bruce Lahman. We've used voice actors.
Speaker 4: Now. Did you come into the support staff area and
Speaker 4: find Miss Higgins semi conscious or passed out? No, she
Speaker 4: wasn't in that area. Did you enter the Minister's office
Speaker 4: and find Miss Higgins on the minister's couch either semi
Speaker 4: conscious or passed out.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 4: I didn't enter the Minister's office during part of the
Speaker 4: period between one eight am and two thirty am on
Speaker 4: the twenty third of March twenty nineteen. You had sexual
Speaker 4: intercourse with miss Higgins.
Speaker 2: I did not.
Speaker 4: I put to you that you were aware that Miss
Speaker 4: Higgins was either passed out or semi conscious.
Speaker 2: No, Doctor Collins.
Speaker 4: I put to you, mister Luhman, that you were approaching
Speaker 4: a climax when Miss Higgins came to regaining a consciousness
Speaker 4: of her surroundings. No, Doctor Collins.
Speaker 1: Collins noted that the judge found that Higgins was either
Speaker 1: unconscious or not fully aware of her surroundings, but came
Speaker 1: to during the act of intercourse.
Speaker 4: Did you, at any time seek Miss Higgins's consent to
Speaker 4: have sexual intercourse with you. I didn't have sexual intercourse
Speaker 4: with her. Well, answer my question, did you at any
Speaker 4: time seek her consent to have sexual inter course with her?
Speaker 1: There was an objection which was overruled and then Justice
Speaker 1: Lee intervened.
Speaker 6: I assume your answer to the question is, at no
Speaker 6: stage did you seek to procure consent to have any
Speaker 6: sexual intercourse? Yes, because you deny the fact that sexual
Speaker 6: intercourse took place, and you deny you asked for any consent,
Speaker 6: Is that correct? Yes?
Speaker 1: Yes, Colin says there's no procedural unfairness because Laman was
Speaker 1: adamant they didn't have sex at all. When that trial starts,
Speaker 1: we'll take you into the courtroom with us. And of
Speaker 1: course it and all the big trials are reported live
Speaker 1: with unrivaled analysis at the Australian dot com dot Au