WEBVTT - Why Bruce Lehrmann says he’s not a violent rapist

0:00:05.040 --> 0:00:08.039
<v Speaker 1>From the Australian. Here's what's on the front. I'm Claire Harvey.

0:00:08.160 --> 0:00:14.360
<v Speaker 1>It's Thursday August twenty twenty five. Too many kids with

0:00:14.440 --> 0:00:17.920
<v Speaker 1>autism are on the National Disability Insurance Scheme and it

0:00:17.960 --> 0:00:20.959
<v Speaker 1>needs a radical overhaul. That's the big news from the

0:00:21.000 --> 0:00:24.600
<v Speaker 1>Federal government, which says the ndis's growth must be brought

0:00:24.680 --> 0:00:31.360
<v Speaker 1>under control and eligibility standards need to change. Australia's peak

0:00:31.480 --> 0:00:35.159
<v Speaker 1>Jewish body has begged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Nettan Yahoo

0:00:35.400 --> 0:00:39.560
<v Speaker 1>and Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke to stop slinging insults

0:00:39.560 --> 0:00:42.960
<v Speaker 1>at one another, saying they're putting the safety of Jews

0:00:43.000 --> 0:00:47.240
<v Speaker 1>at risk. That exclusive is live now at the Australian

0:00:47.320 --> 0:00:52.840
<v Speaker 1>dot Com dot Au. Bruce Lemmon is back in court,

0:00:53.200 --> 0:00:56.520
<v Speaker 1>this time trying to overturn a finding of rape. As

0:00:56.560 --> 0:01:01.880
<v Speaker 1>his lawyer claims he's Australia's most hated man today The

0:01:01.960 --> 0:01:05.800
<v Speaker 1>Reasons Lahman says he is not a violent rapist.

0:01:11.840 --> 0:01:16.080
<v Speaker 2>This episode contains descriptions of sexual assault. If you need help,

0:01:16.280 --> 0:01:21.039
<v Speaker 2>call one eight hundred respect. Is there such a thing

0:01:21.240 --> 0:01:25.280
<v Speaker 2>as non violent rape? Doesn't matter if the victim is

0:01:25.400 --> 0:01:29.360
<v Speaker 2>bruised and battered or if she repeatedly says no. Is

0:01:29.400 --> 0:01:32.679
<v Speaker 2>there a real difference between an alleged rapist knowing their

0:01:32.720 --> 0:01:36.520
<v Speaker 2>target doesn't consent or being reckless as to whether they

0:01:36.560 --> 0:01:41.240
<v Speaker 2>consent or not. These are some of the big issues

0:01:41.240 --> 0:01:44.319
<v Speaker 2>being thrashed out before the full Bench of the Federal Court,

0:01:44.640 --> 0:01:47.800
<v Speaker 2>where former Liberal staffer Bruce Lhmon is appealing a judgment

0:01:48.160 --> 0:01:51.600
<v Speaker 2>that found he had, on the balance of probabilities, raped

0:01:51.640 --> 0:01:56.600
<v Speaker 2>a fellow staffer, Brittany Higgins inside Federal Parliament in twenty nineteen.

0:01:57.280 --> 0:02:00.200
<v Speaker 1>Laman has always denied wrongdoing.

0:02:01.560 --> 0:02:05.040
<v Speaker 3>He's pretty much become a national joke. He's Australia's most

0:02:05.280 --> 0:02:06.040
<v Speaker 3>hated man.

0:02:08.880 --> 0:02:11.840
<v Speaker 1>That's a voice actor reading the words of Zally Burrows,

0:02:12.120 --> 0:02:16.160
<v Speaker 1>the lawyer representing Bruce Lammon. She's a solicitor and she

0:02:16.280 --> 0:02:18.639
<v Speaker 1>started her appeal before the full Bench of the Federal

0:02:18.680 --> 0:02:21.640
<v Speaker 1>Court by apologizing that it was her and not a

0:02:21.680 --> 0:02:26.600
<v Speaker 1>senior barrister appearing before them. Burrow said Lemon couldn't afford

0:02:26.639 --> 0:02:31.080
<v Speaker 1>to engage his preferred silk Guy Reynolds sc just as

0:02:31.160 --> 0:02:36.000
<v Speaker 1>Michael Wigney, presiding alongside Justice Craig Colvin and Justice Wendy Abraham,

0:02:36.360 --> 0:02:39.600
<v Speaker 1>said he was sure Burrows would stand up admirably to

0:02:39.680 --> 0:02:43.520
<v Speaker 1>the opposing Silks, But as Burrows got started, it became

0:02:43.639 --> 0:02:47.320
<v Speaker 1>clear that judges were confused as to exactly what she

0:02:47.480 --> 0:02:51.000
<v Speaker 1>was arguing. One of Lemon's grounds of appeal is that

0:02:51.080 --> 0:02:55.680
<v Speaker 1>he was denied procedural fairness. The Project program on Network

0:02:55.720 --> 0:03:00.519
<v Speaker 1>ten aired an allegation Lehman had forcefully raped Higgins, pinning

0:03:00.600 --> 0:03:04.520
<v Speaker 1>her down while she repeated the word no. Justice Lee

0:03:04.680 --> 0:03:08.080
<v Speaker 1>found that, on the balance of probabilities, Lamon was reckless

0:03:08.360 --> 0:03:11.280
<v Speaker 1>as to whether the very drunk Higgins was consenting or not.

0:03:11.960 --> 0:03:14.640
<v Speaker 1>He found that Higgins's account of the encounter was not

0:03:15.000 --> 0:03:19.240
<v Speaker 1>entirely accurate, but that overall he believed she had been raped.

0:03:20.120 --> 0:03:23.239
<v Speaker 1>Burrows is arguing that Justice Lee couldn't find that Lehman

0:03:23.400 --> 0:03:26.880
<v Speaker 1>was reckless as to whether or not Higgins consented because

0:03:26.919 --> 0:03:30.880
<v Speaker 1>that question of recklessness wasn't properly put to Lemon. In

0:03:31.000 --> 0:03:34.360
<v Speaker 1>cross examination during the trial. When he was in a

0:03:34.360 --> 0:03:39.080
<v Speaker 1>witness box, Lehman simply denied there'd been any sex at all.

0:03:39.160 --> 0:03:42.480
<v Speaker 1>You'll hear a voice actor for the presiding Judge Michael

0:03:42.520 --> 0:03:46.000
<v Speaker 1>Wigney first, and then Justice Craig Colvin.

0:03:48.000 --> 0:03:50.920
<v Speaker 4>Just so I understand where this is going. The essence

0:03:50.960 --> 0:03:53.280
<v Speaker 4>of your argument is that his honor found that in

0:03:53.400 --> 0:03:56.880
<v Speaker 4>terms of your client state of mind, it was recklessness

0:03:57.000 --> 0:04:01.200
<v Speaker 4>as to consent as opposed to knowledge of absence of consent.

0:04:01.960 --> 0:04:05.040
<v Speaker 4>And you say that the case involving recklessness was not

0:04:05.200 --> 0:04:08.280
<v Speaker 4>part of the pleted case. Is that your argument in

0:04:08.320 --> 0:04:08.840
<v Speaker 4>a nutshell?

0:04:09.920 --> 0:04:13.880
<v Speaker 3>No, what we are saying here is the actual allegations

0:04:13.920 --> 0:04:17.120
<v Speaker 3>as to the sequence of events of how the rape occurred,

0:04:17.200 --> 0:04:20.640
<v Speaker 3>how it was pleaded as a violent rape. When mister sorry,

0:04:20.680 --> 0:04:23.839
<v Speaker 3>when his honor found that it was a nonviolent rape,

0:04:24.040 --> 0:04:26.960
<v Speaker 3>he found a completely different type. I'm not sure he

0:04:27.000 --> 0:04:29.520
<v Speaker 3>found a nonviolent rape, and I'm not sure that that's

0:04:29.520 --> 0:04:30.919
<v Speaker 3>a concept that I understand.

0:04:32.720 --> 0:04:37.120
<v Speaker 1>Justice Wigney kept trying to understand exactly what Burrows was saying.

0:04:38.920 --> 0:04:41.400
<v Speaker 4>Is your case that unless every single one of those

0:04:41.440 --> 0:04:44.640
<v Speaker 4>particulars was made out and the primary judge was satisfied

0:04:44.640 --> 0:04:48.080
<v Speaker 4>of them, that somehow the case went outside the pleadings.

0:04:49.160 --> 0:04:52.640
<v Speaker 3>Is that what you're saying, Yes, sir, Look, if there's

0:04:52.680 --> 0:04:56.320
<v Speaker 3>allegations of a very serious criminal nature being made against

0:04:56.320 --> 0:04:59.880
<v Speaker 3>my client, he's entitled to know exactly the full particular

0:05:00.440 --> 0:05:03.360
<v Speaker 3>the allegations. If it's an indictment, it's.

0:05:02.960 --> 0:05:06.680
<v Speaker 4>But that's all there. There's pages of particulars. The primary

0:05:06.760 --> 0:05:10.280
<v Speaker 4>judge wasn't satisfied that all of those particulars had been

0:05:10.320 --> 0:05:14.720
<v Speaker 4>made out, but nonetheless was satisfied that it was recklessness.

0:05:15.200 --> 0:05:16.240
<v Speaker 4>What's unfair about that?

0:05:17.400 --> 0:05:20.240
<v Speaker 3>Take away the recklessness as to whether she was consenting.

0:05:20.720 --> 0:05:22.920
<v Speaker 3>It was the manner and the way of the rape

0:05:23.040 --> 0:05:23.720
<v Speaker 3>was described.

0:05:24.160 --> 0:05:25.360
<v Speaker 4>What difference does it make?

0:05:25.640 --> 0:05:27.320
<v Speaker 3>He was taken surprise as too.

0:05:27.360 --> 0:05:28.760
<v Speaker 4>How was he taken by surprise?

0:05:29.200 --> 0:05:32.640
<v Speaker 3>Mister Limman didn't realize that the version of rape was

0:05:32.680 --> 0:05:36.880
<v Speaker 3>considered or contemplated until he was attending the judgment for delivery,

0:05:37.320 --> 0:05:40.440
<v Speaker 3>and he heard that version then, but throughout the trial

0:05:40.480 --> 0:05:42.279
<v Speaker 3>it was a totally different type of rape that was

0:05:42.279 --> 0:05:44.479
<v Speaker 3>put to him.

0:05:44.680 --> 0:05:47.680
<v Speaker 1>She gave examples of claims by ten that she said

0:05:47.839 --> 0:05:52.159
<v Speaker 1>Justice lead didn't accept, including that the sexual intercourse was forceful,

0:05:52.400 --> 0:05:55.040
<v Speaker 1>that Higgins cried out no, no, no on a loop,

0:05:55.320 --> 0:05:57.880
<v Speaker 1>that Higgins was pinned down on the sofa, and that

0:05:57.920 --> 0:06:02.240
<v Speaker 1>she was awoken by a sharp pa in the thigh.

0:06:02.320 --> 0:06:05.040
<v Speaker 4>It's a procedural fairness argument, is that right?

0:06:05.839 --> 0:06:07.440
<v Speaker 3>Yes, so that's correct.

0:06:08.279 --> 0:06:10.640
<v Speaker 1>The judge kept trying to get to the bottom of.

0:06:10.600 --> 0:06:13.920
<v Speaker 4>It, as I understand that your client's case at trial

0:06:14.080 --> 0:06:17.280
<v Speaker 4>was that there was no sexual intercourse whatsoever.

0:06:18.600 --> 0:06:21.320
<v Speaker 1>He pointed out that during the trial, when Lehman was

0:06:21.360 --> 0:06:26.080
<v Speaker 1>asked whether he sought Higgins's consent, his own barrister objected

0:06:26.080 --> 0:06:29.160
<v Speaker 1>to that question on the basis Lemon denied there'd been

0:06:29.279 --> 0:06:30.159
<v Speaker 1>any sex at all.

0:06:30.839 --> 0:06:32.719
<v Speaker 4>So what did you expect that he would have been

0:06:32.800 --> 0:06:36.920
<v Speaker 4>asked in those circumstances in cross examination, particularly in light

0:06:36.920 --> 0:06:38.760
<v Speaker 4>of that objection, If it was put.

0:06:38.640 --> 0:06:41.960
<v Speaker 3>To mister Limban the particular type of sexual assault and

0:06:42.040 --> 0:06:45.840
<v Speaker 3>the particular events of how he's found, perhaps mister Lhbman

0:06:46.360 --> 0:06:49.000
<v Speaker 3>may have called other witnesses, Perhaps he would have given

0:06:49.040 --> 0:06:51.400
<v Speaker 3>evidence to a different It's hard.

0:06:51.160 --> 0:06:54.840
<v Speaker 4>To His case was clear there was no sexual intercourse,

0:06:55.360 --> 0:06:58.440
<v Speaker 4>So how could he have been questioned about the particular

0:06:58.520 --> 0:07:02.560
<v Speaker 4>circumstances in which it curred. It could have been cross examined,

0:07:02.560 --> 0:07:04.960
<v Speaker 4>but he would have kept on saying there was no

0:07:05.160 --> 0:07:06.160
<v Speaker 4>sexual intercourse.

0:07:06.720 --> 0:07:09.120
<v Speaker 3>No, your honor, I can't make that admission concession. If

0:07:09.160 --> 0:07:11.480
<v Speaker 3>you put to someone allegations of a violent nature and

0:07:11.520 --> 0:07:14.400
<v Speaker 3>then another case where it's not so violent, you don't

0:07:14.760 --> 0:07:17.440
<v Speaker 3>know what the answer is going to be. In respect,

0:07:17.480 --> 0:07:22.480
<v Speaker 3>it comes down to it's really seriously unfair denial of natural.

0:07:22.240 --> 0:07:29.400
<v Speaker 1>Justice coming up what the other side says about all that.

0:07:44.560 --> 0:07:48.600
<v Speaker 1>Matthew Collins Casey, representing Network ten, said Borrow's submissions to

0:07:48.640 --> 0:07:52.280
<v Speaker 1>the court were astonishing. Colin said there was no challenge

0:07:52.280 --> 0:07:56.200
<v Speaker 1>to the judge's essential findings that sexual intercourse took place

0:07:56.240 --> 0:07:58.040
<v Speaker 1>and that Britney Higgins did not consent.

0:08:00.200 --> 0:08:03.320
<v Speaker 5>End of the day, this was a defamation case, not

0:08:03.360 --> 0:08:06.360
<v Speaker 5>a rape case. Mims Higgins was found not to have

0:08:06.480 --> 0:08:10.760
<v Speaker 5>consented to sexual intercourse, and it was accepted that mister

0:08:10.880 --> 0:08:15.680
<v Speaker 5>Lahman knew she was intoxicated. The ordinary person would consider

0:08:15.760 --> 0:08:18.720
<v Speaker 5>that to be a rape.

0:08:19.440 --> 0:08:22.160
<v Speaker 1>Collins ripped into the submission that there was a difference

0:08:22.200 --> 0:08:25.320
<v Speaker 1>between different types of rape depending on whether or not

0:08:25.400 --> 0:08:28.760
<v Speaker 1>there'd been violence or the victim had actively fought off

0:08:28.840 --> 0:08:29.480
<v Speaker 1>the attacker.

0:08:30.160 --> 0:08:35.680
<v Speaker 5>In our submission, it's obviously rooted in historical misconceptions. Both

0:08:35.760 --> 0:08:40.800
<v Speaker 5>involve an abhorrent violation of bodily autonomy, and both are

0:08:40.840 --> 0:08:43.080
<v Speaker 5>apt to cause grave trauma.

0:08:43.480 --> 0:08:45.880
<v Speaker 1>I mean justice, Wigney interrupted.

0:08:46.200 --> 0:08:48.360
<v Speaker 4>In other words, all rape is violent.

0:08:48.720 --> 0:08:53.320
<v Speaker 5>All rape is violent. This case involved a violent rape

0:08:53.840 --> 0:08:56.360
<v Speaker 5>when one puts oneself in the position of the victim,

0:08:56.840 --> 0:09:00.240
<v Speaker 5>which is just appalling. She is not fully aware of

0:09:00.280 --> 0:09:04.520
<v Speaker 5>her surroundings when the act begins. She then becomes aware

0:09:04.559 --> 0:09:08.640
<v Speaker 5>of the surroundings on his honour's findings, she can't get

0:09:08.679 --> 0:09:13.479
<v Speaker 5>the words out to scream or resist. The act continues

0:09:13.559 --> 0:09:17.560
<v Speaker 5>to climax, and the perpetrator then leaves without a word.

0:09:18.200 --> 0:09:23.040
<v Speaker 5>Those circumstances are awful, and what they show is that

0:09:23.080 --> 0:09:26.560
<v Speaker 5>the sting of the imputation resides in the fact of

0:09:26.600 --> 0:09:32.320
<v Speaker 5>the sexual intercourse without consent, not in any details associated

0:09:32.360 --> 0:09:35.959
<v Speaker 5>with it. And if mister Lehman's contention were to be accepted,

0:09:36.880 --> 0:09:40.080
<v Speaker 5>it would follow that although he raped miss Higgins in

0:09:40.160 --> 0:09:45.440
<v Speaker 5>appalling circumstances, he should be entitled to damages because when

0:09:45.480 --> 0:09:51.000
<v Speaker 5>she woke up mid rape, Miss Higgins didn't cry out no, no,

0:09:51.000 --> 0:09:52.480
<v Speaker 5>No on a loop.

0:09:53.280 --> 0:09:57.360
<v Speaker 1>Colin's slated Burrows suggestion that Laman would be entitled to

0:09:57.400 --> 0:10:01.120
<v Speaker 1>financial damages if the original find were overturned.

0:10:02.880 --> 0:10:05.880
<v Speaker 5>In our submission, a man who rapes a woman he

0:10:06.040 --> 0:10:10.439
<v Speaker 5>knows to be seriously intoxicated, who is not fully aware

0:10:10.440 --> 0:10:13.320
<v Speaker 5>of her surroundings at the time of the commencement of

0:10:13.320 --> 0:10:17.680
<v Speaker 5>the rape, who continues raping her when she becomes aware

0:10:17.760 --> 0:10:20.400
<v Speaker 5>of his surroundings, and that he is on top of

0:10:20.440 --> 0:10:24.480
<v Speaker 5>her and inside her, and who then leaves her in

0:10:24.559 --> 0:10:27.480
<v Speaker 5>the office of a Minister for the Crown in a

0:10:27.520 --> 0:10:31.679
<v Speaker 5>state of undress that is not a man with any

0:10:31.800 --> 0:10:38.040
<v Speaker 5>reputation in respect of sexual morality that would warrant compensation.

0:10:39.160 --> 0:10:42.200
<v Speaker 1>The fallout from this story caused a serious rift between

0:10:42.200 --> 0:10:46.160
<v Speaker 1>Network ten and its then biggest star, Lisa Wilkinson, who

0:10:46.160 --> 0:10:50.600
<v Speaker 1>presented the Bombshell interview where Higgins made her allegation of rape.

0:10:50.640 --> 0:10:55.160
<v Speaker 1>Wilkinson is represented by Sue Chrysantheusc. She said this question

0:10:55.240 --> 0:10:59.480
<v Speaker 1>of recklessness wasn't important to the original audience in this

0:10:59.559 --> 0:11:02.480
<v Speaker 1>day and a to an audience of the project in

0:11:02.520 --> 0:11:05.959
<v Speaker 1>February twenty twenty one, there is no difference in substance.

0:11:06.559 --> 0:11:08.800
<v Speaker 1>The court has read a letter that indicated Higgins and

0:11:08.840 --> 0:11:12.360
<v Speaker 1>her lawyers refused to cooperate at all with Wilkinson's defense

0:11:12.400 --> 0:11:15.680
<v Speaker 1>to Bruce Lammon's defamation claim because they didn't want to

0:11:15.679 --> 0:11:19.440
<v Speaker 1>work with Sue Chrisanthu. So in the original trial, Higgins

0:11:19.440 --> 0:11:22.880
<v Speaker 1>gave evidence for Ten, but not for Wilkinson, even though

0:11:22.920 --> 0:11:27.000
<v Speaker 1>they were all supposedly on the same side. Chris andthew

0:11:27.080 --> 0:11:29.520
<v Speaker 1>told the full bench on Wednesday, when Matt Collins was

0:11:29.520 --> 0:11:32.160
<v Speaker 1>cross examining Bruce Lahman, he was bound to stick to

0:11:32.200 --> 0:11:35.200
<v Speaker 1>the facts as Higgins had outlined them. That is, it

0:11:35.280 --> 0:11:39.040
<v Speaker 1>was a forceful rape. We at no point in the

0:11:39.120 --> 0:11:43.040
<v Speaker 1>trial bought into the full narrative given by Miss Higgins.

0:11:45.480 --> 0:11:52.240
<v Speaker 1>The appeal hearing continues next week. There'll be a judgment

0:11:52.320 --> 0:11:55.760
<v Speaker 1>in another matter that has spun off from Brittney Higgins's allegations,

0:11:55.960 --> 0:11:59.160
<v Speaker 1>the defamation claim brought by her ven boss, former Coalition

0:11:59.240 --> 0:12:03.160
<v Speaker 1>minister Linda Reynolds. Subscribers to The Australian we'll find out

0:12:03.240 --> 0:12:06.920
<v Speaker 1>that result first. Join us at the Australian dot com

0:12:06.960 --> 0:12:07.480
<v Speaker 1>dot au