Speaker 1: A quick note before we jump into today's episode that
Speaker 1: tda's editor and familiar voice on this podcast is Billy
Speaker 1: Fitzsimon's Lisa Wilkinson's daughter. Billy had no editorial oversight or
Speaker 1: involvement with this podcast or any post we've made on
Speaker 1: this topic already. And this is this is the Daily Oh,
Speaker 1: this is the Daily OS.
Speaker 2: Oh, Now it makes sense.
Speaker 1: Good morning, and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Thursday,
Speaker 1: the fourth of December.
Speaker 2: I'm Zara Seidler, I'm Emma Gillespie.
Speaker 1: Yesterday, former Liberal staffer Bruce Lhman lost the appeal of
Speaker 1: his failed defamation case against Network ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson.
Speaker 1: It comes after the Federal Court ruled last year that
Speaker 1: it was more likely than not that Lherman raped Britney
Speaker 1: Higgins at Parliament House back in twenty nineteen. In today's podcast,
Speaker 1: m we're going to explain this latest judgment and what
Speaker 1: it means for the very long run case.
Speaker 2: Okay, Zara, we have covered this case many, many times
Speaker 2: over the past several years. It has been a long
Speaker 2: running saga and a pretty difficult one to keep up with.
Speaker 2: I think if you are just in the general public
Speaker 2: dipping in and out. But for anyone who might have
Speaker 2: forgotten or might be confused, what is the background to
Speaker 2: this appeal that we need to know about.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're right, this has had many turns and many twists.
Speaker 1: But what you need to know is that Bruce Lherman,
Speaker 1: who I mentioned at the top, is a former Liberal staffer,
Speaker 1: launched defamation proceedings over an interview broadcast on TENS the
Speaker 1: Project in twenty twenty one. That show is no longer
Speaker 1: even running and I think that shows how long this
Speaker 1: has been going on for. During that interview, Britney Higgins,
Speaker 1: also a former Liberal staffer, alleged to journalist Lisa Wilkinson
Speaker 1: that Lehman had raped her in Parliament House in March
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen. Lerman, who to this day maintains his innocence,
Speaker 1: was not named in the interview, either by Higgins nor
Speaker 1: by Wilkinson. However, Bruce Lehman has alleged that his reputation
Speaker 1: was damaged and as such that he was defamed because
Speaker 1: he was identifiable, so his name was not said, but
Speaker 1: he argued at the time that his identity was still
Speaker 1: clear okay, that people.
Speaker 2: Who maybe knew him knew his job could have pieced
Speaker 2: together the details from the interview and landed on him
Speaker 2: being the alleged suspect exactly.
Speaker 1: And it was on that basis that Bruce Lehman brought
Speaker 1: a defamation case against both Network ten and Lisa Wilkinson.
Speaker 1: Now fast forward to that case. One of the ways
Speaker 1: to defend a defamation case is to prove that the
Speaker 1: claims made were truthful, and so that is what both
Speaker 1: Wilkinson and Ten used during that case as a defense.
Speaker 2: So they said, in a nutshell, we did not defame
Speaker 2: Bruce Lemmon because the claims that and the interview are true.
Speaker 1: Correct. That is what they argued, and we had a
Speaker 1: judgment back in twenty twenty four at the time, Justice
Speaker 1: Michael Lee ruled the claims laid out by Wilkinson and
Speaker 1: Ten that Lehman raped Higgins were true on the balance
Speaker 1: of probabilities, so more likely than not that those claims
Speaker 1: were true. Important to note that this was a civil case,
Speaker 1: it was not a criminal case, and so that standard
Speaker 1: of proof was a bit lower than it is in
Speaker 1: a criminal case.
Speaker 2: So civil balance of probabilities criminal case, a claim has
Speaker 2: to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 1: Yes, but that was found to be the case in
Speaker 1: this specific defamation case. Now, there was a lot said
Speaker 1: in that judgment. We've done a bunch of podcasts on that,
Speaker 1: so I won't rehash everything that was said by Justice
Speaker 1: Lee at the time, but I do think that it's
Speaker 1: important to note that Lee's ruling stated that Lherman could
Speaker 1: not have been defamed because the allegations were truthful. Many
Speaker 1: listeners will remember the now famous line from Lee, who
Speaker 1: when he handed down the judgment said, and I quote,
Speaker 1: having escaped the lion's den, Lehman made the mistake of
Speaker 1: going back for his hat. At the time, the court
Speaker 1: ordered Bruce Lehmon to paid two million dollars in legal costs.
Speaker 2: So Justice Lee's assertion there being that there were these
Speaker 2: allegations of rape, but Lermon decided to fight against them
Speaker 2: with this defamation case, ultimately, in his perspective, wasting the
Speaker 2: court's time. There were those costs that were ordered to
Speaker 2: be paid. So the ruling was that Lehmon was not defamed. YEP,
Speaker 2: that was in twenty twenty four last year. It's now
Speaker 2: nearly the end of twenty twenty five and we are
Speaker 2: still talking about this.
Speaker 1: Why is that, well, if we're to continue with Justice
Speaker 1: Lee's turner phrase. Bruce Lehman went back into the lions
Speaker 1: den yet again when he filed an appeal against Lee's
Speaker 1: findings on four main grounds. So he appealed the failed
Speaker 1: defamation case. He appealed on the basis that he believed
Speaker 1: he was denied fairness on some of the claims made
Speaker 1: against him, and that Justice Lee had erred in accepting
Speaker 1: the truth defense. And so we had a full bench
Speaker 1: of the Federal Court, so three judges who weren't involved
Speaker 1: in the original case they heard the appeal, and that
Speaker 1: was a little while ago. At the time, Lehman's lawyer,
Speaker 1: Zalie Burrows, told the court that her client was probably
Speaker 1: Australia's most hated man, and she cited abusive social media
Speaker 1: posts directed at him. She argued that Justice Lee in
Speaker 1: the defamation case had turned it into an unfair quasi
Speaker 1: rape trial. So that was essentially just giving you a
Speaker 1: bit of color as to what Bruce Lemon and his
Speaker 1: lawyer were arguing. That hearing wrapped up early at the
Speaker 1: end of the second day, after the panel of Federal
Speaker 1: Court judges said they struggled to understand Burrows's argument.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I remember this on earlier in the year, and
Speaker 2: we were expecting the appeals hearings to last a lot
Speaker 2: longer than those two days. It all ended quite abruptly
Speaker 2: at the time, and there was some confusion as to why,
Speaker 2: and it came down to that legal argument. So we
Speaker 2: got the result from that appeal yesterday, some months in
Speaker 2: between the hearings ending and that final word being handed down.
Speaker 1: What was it. Lehman's appeal was rejected. So Justice Michael Wigney,
Speaker 1: who is not Justice Lee, different person, yep, He explained
Speaker 1: the panel of judges reasoning for dismissing the appeal. He
Speaker 1: said that the judges found that Lee had not denied
Speaker 1: Leermon fairness in the defamation case. He also said, and
Speaker 1: I thought that this was interesting that the judges had
Speaker 1: concluded that Lehman knew Higgins had not consented to sex.
Speaker 1: That was a different finding to what Justice Lee had
Speaker 1: found and it was almost elevating what they understood to
Speaker 1: have happened at the time in front of the law.
Speaker 1: Lehman's appeal was dismissed, as I said, and he was
Speaker 1: again ordered to pay the other side's costs.
Speaker 2: So we have this fresh panel of judges reassessing what
Speaker 2: went on in those initial defamation proceedings, ultimately upholding Justice
Speaker 2: Michael Lee's findings, also finding that he acted fairly and
Speaker 2: reaffirming essentially the truth defense that Lehmann did rape Higgins
Speaker 2: according to the court. So he's lost his defamation case,
Speaker 2: he's lost his subsequent appeal. What happens now for Bruce.
Speaker 1: Lemon yees so he could appeal this decision in Australia's
Speaker 1: top court, the High.
Speaker 2: Court, which would take the appeal from the Federal Court
Speaker 2: to a more senior court.
Speaker 1: Correct, But it doesn't automatically happen. What needs to happen
Speaker 1: is that Lehman would first need to seek permission for
Speaker 1: his appeal to be heard, and that would need to
Speaker 1: be accepted by the High Court in a order for
Speaker 1: the case to progress. For example, with Ben Roberts Smith,
Speaker 1: he did this, He requested that the court here his
Speaker 1: appeal and they rejected that. If that happens, that is
Speaker 1: the end of the road for appeals and the Federal
Speaker 1: Court's judgment is final, So there would be no other
Speaker 1: avenues for Bruce Lehmon to continue to try and progress
Speaker 1: this case.
Speaker 2: Do we know if he is planning to appeal the appeal.
Speaker 1: Lots of appeals In that one sentence, Yes, AAP is
Speaker 1: reporting that Lehman is planning to appeal his appeal, So
Speaker 1: we're going to have to wait and see if that's
Speaker 1: the case. There are obviously costs involved as well, so
Speaker 1: we'll keep an eye on that one.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think if we look at what Bruce
Speaker 2: Lemon's lawyer, Zali Burrows was saying outside of court yesterday,
Speaker 2: it certainly sounds like they are maybe interested in continuing
Speaker 2: to defend this. Burrows said, quote, Bruce is really overwhelmed.
Speaker 2: I just want everyone to remember that at the heart
Speaker 2: of the matter, we have a young man who was
Speaker 2: accused of rape at Parliament House. Bruce's life has been destroyed.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and that's certainly the type of language that's been
Speaker 1: used this whole time.
Speaker 2: Yes, exactly.
Speaker 1: I should say not just in this case, but in
Speaker 1: other cases, so not to confuse listeners, but this is
Speaker 1: likely not to be the last time that we hear
Speaker 1: about Bruce Lehman in the headlines, even this week. Bruce
Speaker 1: Lehman is actually also due to face court in Tasmania
Speaker 1: today for a separate case that is in regards to
Speaker 1: an allegation that he stole a car in Tasmania in
Speaker 1: November last year, and that case has been postponed for
Speaker 1: a number of reasons. Lehman's lawyers argue that there were
Speaker 1: medical reasons why he couldn't appear before the court and
Speaker 1: so that's been delayed until now where he is again,
Speaker 1: as I said, expected to face court on that charge.
Speaker 2: Completely separate to the defamation and the parliament House allegations.
Speaker 1: Correct, But there is also a another case, a third one.
Speaker 1: There is a third and also separate case. Bruce Lemon
Speaker 1: has also been accused of rape into Woomba in Queensland.
Speaker 1: While the defamation case that we've been speaking about throughout
Speaker 1: this podcast is a civil case, as I mentioned, this
Speaker 1: one is a criminal case in regards to the charge
Speaker 1: of rape. These charges were first heard in court in
Speaker 1: January of twenty twenty three and that trial is forthcoming.
Speaker 1: We don't really have much more information. We do know
Speaker 1: that Zali Burrow's, the lawyer who has defended Bruce Lemon
Speaker 1: in the civil case, is expected to be defending him
Speaker 1: here as well. So again there is a lot happening,
Speaker 1: a lot of different court cases, all kind of happening
Speaker 1: at the same time, but we will be sure to
Speaker 1: update listeners as we learn more.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much, Zara for breaking that all down
Speaker 2: for us, so just to recap, the appeal could yet
Speaker 2: be appealed in the High Court TBC. Lemon is appearing
Speaker 2: in Tasmania for a separate case this week about the
Speaker 2: alleged stolen car, and there is that criminal case regarding
Speaker 2: the rape allegation into Woomba, Queensland. Correct lots to keep
Speaker 2: an eye on, and we will continue to do so
Speaker 2: here at The Daily OS. Zara, Thank you so.
Speaker 1: Much, Thank you em and thank you for joining us
Speaker 1: for another episode of The Daily OS. If you need support,
Speaker 1: please reach out to one eight hundred. Respect, take care
Speaker 1: of yourself, and we'll be back again later today. My
Speaker 1: name is Lily Madden and I'm a proud Arunda Bungelung
Speaker 1: Calcuttin woman from Gadighl Country. The Daily oz acknowledges that
Speaker 1: this podcast is recorded on the lands of the Gadighl
Speaker 1: people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Speaker 1: Island and nations. We pay our respects to the first
Speaker 1: peoples of these countries, both past and present,