WEBVTT - Is Bruce Lehrmann's defamation fight over?

0:00:00.040 --> 0:00:02.600
<v Speaker 1>A quick note before we jump into today's episode that

0:00:02.720 --> 0:00:06.320
<v Speaker 1>tda's editor and familiar voice on this podcast is Billy

0:00:06.320 --> 0:00:10.800
<v Speaker 1>Fitzsimon's Lisa Wilkinson's daughter. Billy had no editorial oversight or

0:00:10.880 --> 0:00:13.920
<v Speaker 1>involvement with this podcast or any post we've made on

0:00:13.960 --> 0:00:17.880
<v Speaker 1>this topic already. And this is this is the Daily Oh,

0:00:18.040 --> 0:00:19.760
<v Speaker 1>this is the Daily OS.

0:00:19.760 --> 0:00:21.480
<v Speaker 2>Oh, Now it makes sense.

0:00:29.320 --> 0:00:32.040
<v Speaker 1>Good morning, and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Thursday,

0:00:32.080 --> 0:00:33.040
<v Speaker 1>the fourth of December.

0:00:33.240 --> 0:00:35.560
<v Speaker 2>I'm Zara Seidler, I'm Emma Gillespie.

0:00:35.800 --> 0:00:39.680
<v Speaker 1>Yesterday, former Liberal staffer Bruce Lhman lost the appeal of

0:00:39.720 --> 0:00:44.360
<v Speaker 1>his failed defamation case against Network ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson.

0:00:44.800 --> 0:00:47.640
<v Speaker 1>It comes after the Federal Court ruled last year that

0:00:47.840 --> 0:00:50.880
<v Speaker 1>it was more likely than not that Lherman raped Britney

0:00:50.960 --> 0:00:55.120
<v Speaker 1>Higgins at Parliament House back in twenty nineteen. In today's podcast,

0:00:55.240 --> 0:00:58.000
<v Speaker 1>m we're going to explain this latest judgment and what

0:00:58.080 --> 0:01:00.600
<v Speaker 1>it means for the very long run case.

0:01:04.319 --> 0:01:08.280
<v Speaker 2>Okay, Zara, we have covered this case many, many times

0:01:08.360 --> 0:01:11.200
<v Speaker 2>over the past several years. It has been a long

0:01:11.280 --> 0:01:14.440
<v Speaker 2>running saga and a pretty difficult one to keep up with.

0:01:14.720 --> 0:01:17.560
<v Speaker 2>I think if you are just in the general public

0:01:17.680 --> 0:01:20.600
<v Speaker 2>dipping in and out. But for anyone who might have

0:01:20.760 --> 0:01:24.560
<v Speaker 2>forgotten or might be confused, what is the background to

0:01:24.640 --> 0:01:26.119
<v Speaker 2>this appeal that we need to know about.

0:01:26.560 --> 0:01:30.200
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, you're right, this has had many turns and many twists.

0:01:30.319 --> 0:01:33.319
<v Speaker 1>But what you need to know is that Bruce Lherman,

0:01:33.520 --> 0:01:36.880
<v Speaker 1>who I mentioned at the top, is a former Liberal staffer,

0:01:37.400 --> 0:01:41.600
<v Speaker 1>launched defamation proceedings over an interview broadcast on TENS the

0:01:41.680 --> 0:01:44.880
<v Speaker 1>Project in twenty twenty one. That show is no longer

0:01:44.959 --> 0:01:47.160
<v Speaker 1>even running and I think that shows how long this

0:01:47.240 --> 0:01:51.120
<v Speaker 1>has been going on for. During that interview, Britney Higgins,

0:01:51.240 --> 0:01:55.240
<v Speaker 1>also a former Liberal staffer, alleged to journalist Lisa Wilkinson

0:01:55.440 --> 0:01:58.520
<v Speaker 1>that Lehman had raped her in Parliament House in March

0:01:58.600 --> 0:02:03.080
<v Speaker 1>twenty nineteen. Lerman, who to this day maintains his innocence,

0:02:03.600 --> 0:02:07.040
<v Speaker 1>was not named in the interview, either by Higgins nor

0:02:07.240 --> 0:02:11.680
<v Speaker 1>by Wilkinson. However, Bruce Lehman has alleged that his reputation

0:02:11.840 --> 0:02:15.200
<v Speaker 1>was damaged and as such that he was defamed because

0:02:15.240 --> 0:02:18.600
<v Speaker 1>he was identifiable, so his name was not said, but

0:02:18.680 --> 0:02:21.640
<v Speaker 1>he argued at the time that his identity was still

0:02:21.720 --> 0:02:23.600
<v Speaker 1>clear okay, that people.

0:02:23.440 --> 0:02:27.560
<v Speaker 2>Who maybe knew him knew his job could have pieced

0:02:27.600 --> 0:02:30.760
<v Speaker 2>together the details from the interview and landed on him

0:02:30.800 --> 0:02:33.480
<v Speaker 2>being the alleged suspect exactly.

0:02:33.600 --> 0:02:36.000
<v Speaker 1>And it was on that basis that Bruce Lehman brought

0:02:36.000 --> 0:02:40.559
<v Speaker 1>a defamation case against both Network ten and Lisa Wilkinson.

0:02:40.919 --> 0:02:44.200
<v Speaker 1>Now fast forward to that case. One of the ways

0:02:44.240 --> 0:02:46.960
<v Speaker 1>to defend a defamation case is to prove that the

0:02:47.000 --> 0:02:50.920
<v Speaker 1>claims made were truthful, and so that is what both

0:02:50.960 --> 0:02:54.799
<v Speaker 1>Wilkinson and Ten used during that case as a defense.

0:02:55.120 --> 0:02:58.840
<v Speaker 2>So they said, in a nutshell, we did not defame

0:02:58.919 --> 0:03:01.440
<v Speaker 2>Bruce Lemmon because the claims that and the interview are true.

0:03:01.639 --> 0:03:04.639
<v Speaker 1>Correct. That is what they argued, and we had a

0:03:04.720 --> 0:03:08.000
<v Speaker 1>judgment back in twenty twenty four at the time, Justice

0:03:08.040 --> 0:03:11.040
<v Speaker 1>Michael Lee ruled the claims laid out by Wilkinson and

0:03:11.160 --> 0:03:15.160
<v Speaker 1>Ten that Lehman raped Higgins were true on the balance

0:03:15.200 --> 0:03:18.639
<v Speaker 1>of probabilities, so more likely than not that those claims

0:03:18.680 --> 0:03:22.840
<v Speaker 1>were true. Important to note that this was a civil case,

0:03:22.919 --> 0:03:25.480
<v Speaker 1>it was not a criminal case, and so that standard

0:03:25.480 --> 0:03:27.760
<v Speaker 1>of proof was a bit lower than it is in

0:03:27.800 --> 0:03:28.640
<v Speaker 1>a criminal case.

0:03:29.000 --> 0:03:33.079
<v Speaker 2>So civil balance of probabilities criminal case, a claim has

0:03:33.120 --> 0:03:35.480
<v Speaker 2>to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

0:03:35.640 --> 0:03:38.960
<v Speaker 1>Yes, but that was found to be the case in

0:03:39.280 --> 0:03:42.960
<v Speaker 1>this specific defamation case. Now, there was a lot said

0:03:43.080 --> 0:03:46.280
<v Speaker 1>in that judgment. We've done a bunch of podcasts on that,

0:03:46.600 --> 0:03:50.600
<v Speaker 1>so I won't rehash everything that was said by Justice

0:03:50.680 --> 0:03:52.800
<v Speaker 1>Lee at the time, but I do think that it's

0:03:52.840 --> 0:03:56.320
<v Speaker 1>important to note that Lee's ruling stated that Lherman could

0:03:56.320 --> 0:04:00.280
<v Speaker 1>not have been defamed because the allegations were truthful. Many

0:04:00.280 --> 0:04:03.760
<v Speaker 1>listeners will remember the now famous line from Lee, who

0:04:03.800 --> 0:04:06.520
<v Speaker 1>when he handed down the judgment said, and I quote,

0:04:06.840 --> 0:04:10.080
<v Speaker 1>having escaped the lion's den, Lehman made the mistake of

0:04:10.120 --> 0:04:13.080
<v Speaker 1>going back for his hat. At the time, the court

0:04:13.200 --> 0:04:16.400
<v Speaker 1>ordered Bruce Lehmon to paid two million dollars in legal costs.

0:04:16.680 --> 0:04:20.800
<v Speaker 2>So Justice Lee's assertion there being that there were these

0:04:20.839 --> 0:04:26.159
<v Speaker 2>allegations of rape, but Lermon decided to fight against them

0:04:26.160 --> 0:04:30.160
<v Speaker 2>with this defamation case, ultimately, in his perspective, wasting the

0:04:30.200 --> 0:04:33.080
<v Speaker 2>court's time. There were those costs that were ordered to

0:04:33.120 --> 0:04:37.360
<v Speaker 2>be paid. So the ruling was that Lehmon was not defamed. YEP,

0:04:37.560 --> 0:04:40.400
<v Speaker 2>that was in twenty twenty four last year. It's now

0:04:40.440 --> 0:04:41.919
<v Speaker 2>nearly the end of twenty twenty five and we are

0:04:41.960 --> 0:04:43.000
<v Speaker 2>still talking about this.

0:04:43.920 --> 0:04:47.239
<v Speaker 1>Why is that, well, if we're to continue with Justice

0:04:47.320 --> 0:04:51.039
<v Speaker 1>Lee's turner phrase. Bruce Lehman went back into the lions

0:04:51.080 --> 0:04:55.719
<v Speaker 1>den yet again when he filed an appeal against Lee's

0:04:55.720 --> 0:05:00.440
<v Speaker 1>findings on four main grounds. So he appealed the failed

0:05:00.560 --> 0:05:05.280
<v Speaker 1>defamation case. He appealed on the basis that he believed

0:05:05.320 --> 0:05:07.880
<v Speaker 1>he was denied fairness on some of the claims made

0:05:07.880 --> 0:05:11.919
<v Speaker 1>against him, and that Justice Lee had erred in accepting

0:05:12.120 --> 0:05:15.839
<v Speaker 1>the truth defense. And so we had a full bench

0:05:15.920 --> 0:05:18.839
<v Speaker 1>of the Federal Court, so three judges who weren't involved

0:05:18.839 --> 0:05:22.080
<v Speaker 1>in the original case they heard the appeal, and that

0:05:22.320 --> 0:05:25.440
<v Speaker 1>was a little while ago. At the time, Lehman's lawyer,

0:05:25.560 --> 0:05:29.400
<v Speaker 1>Zalie Burrows, told the court that her client was probably

0:05:29.480 --> 0:05:34.240
<v Speaker 1>Australia's most hated man, and she cited abusive social media

0:05:34.279 --> 0:05:38.359
<v Speaker 1>posts directed at him. She argued that Justice Lee in

0:05:38.480 --> 0:05:42.240
<v Speaker 1>the defamation case had turned it into an unfair quasi

0:05:42.440 --> 0:05:45.680
<v Speaker 1>rape trial. So that was essentially just giving you a

0:05:45.680 --> 0:05:47.400
<v Speaker 1>bit of color as to what Bruce Lemon and his

0:05:47.480 --> 0:05:51.479
<v Speaker 1>lawyer were arguing. That hearing wrapped up early at the

0:05:51.640 --> 0:05:54.360
<v Speaker 1>end of the second day, after the panel of Federal

0:05:54.400 --> 0:05:59.200
<v Speaker 1>Court judges said they struggled to understand Burrows's argument.

0:05:59.000 --> 0:06:01.520
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I remember this on earlier in the year, and

0:06:01.560 --> 0:06:05.520
<v Speaker 2>we were expecting the appeals hearings to last a lot

0:06:05.600 --> 0:06:08.360
<v Speaker 2>longer than those two days. It all ended quite abruptly

0:06:08.440 --> 0:06:11.279
<v Speaker 2>at the time, and there was some confusion as to why,

0:06:11.360 --> 0:06:14.760
<v Speaker 2>and it came down to that legal argument. So we

0:06:14.880 --> 0:06:19.520
<v Speaker 2>got the result from that appeal yesterday, some months in

0:06:19.600 --> 0:06:23.520
<v Speaker 2>between the hearings ending and that final word being handed down.

0:06:24.160 --> 0:06:29.440
<v Speaker 1>What was it. Lehman's appeal was rejected. So Justice Michael Wigney,

0:06:29.640 --> 0:06:33.719
<v Speaker 1>who is not Justice Lee, different person, yep, He explained

0:06:33.760 --> 0:06:37.640
<v Speaker 1>the panel of judges reasoning for dismissing the appeal. He

0:06:37.760 --> 0:06:40.720
<v Speaker 1>said that the judges found that Lee had not denied

0:06:40.800 --> 0:06:44.440
<v Speaker 1>Leermon fairness in the defamation case. He also said, and

0:06:44.480 --> 0:06:46.880
<v Speaker 1>I thought that this was interesting that the judges had

0:06:46.920 --> 0:06:51.760
<v Speaker 1>concluded that Lehman knew Higgins had not consented to sex.

0:06:52.400 --> 0:06:55.240
<v Speaker 1>That was a different finding to what Justice Lee had

0:06:55.279 --> 0:06:58.400
<v Speaker 1>found and it was almost elevating what they understood to

0:06:58.480 --> 0:07:01.080
<v Speaker 1>have happened at the time in front of the law.

0:07:01.400 --> 0:07:04.279
<v Speaker 1>Lehman's appeal was dismissed, as I said, and he was

0:07:04.440 --> 0:07:07.160
<v Speaker 1>again ordered to pay the other side's costs.

0:07:07.520 --> 0:07:12.040
<v Speaker 2>So we have this fresh panel of judges reassessing what

0:07:12.280 --> 0:07:17.800
<v Speaker 2>went on in those initial defamation proceedings, ultimately upholding Justice

0:07:17.800 --> 0:07:22.160
<v Speaker 2>Michael Lee's findings, also finding that he acted fairly and

0:07:22.760 --> 0:07:28.080
<v Speaker 2>reaffirming essentially the truth defense that Lehmann did rape Higgins

0:07:28.160 --> 0:07:33.120
<v Speaker 2>according to the court. So he's lost his defamation case,

0:07:33.560 --> 0:07:37.440
<v Speaker 2>he's lost his subsequent appeal. What happens now for Bruce.

0:07:37.280 --> 0:07:42.760
<v Speaker 1>Lemon yees so he could appeal this decision in Australia's

0:07:42.760 --> 0:07:43.840
<v Speaker 1>top court, the High.

0:07:43.680 --> 0:07:46.560
<v Speaker 2>Court, which would take the appeal from the Federal Court

0:07:46.760 --> 0:07:48.360
<v Speaker 2>to a more senior court.

0:07:48.520 --> 0:07:51.960
<v Speaker 1>Correct, But it doesn't automatically happen. What needs to happen

0:07:52.120 --> 0:07:55.120
<v Speaker 1>is that Lehman would first need to seek permission for

0:07:55.160 --> 0:07:58.000
<v Speaker 1>his appeal to be heard, and that would need to

0:07:58.040 --> 0:08:00.400
<v Speaker 1>be accepted by the High Court in a order for

0:08:00.440 --> 0:08:03.960
<v Speaker 1>the case to progress. For example, with Ben Roberts Smith,

0:08:04.240 --> 0:08:07.400
<v Speaker 1>he did this, He requested that the court here his

0:08:07.560 --> 0:08:10.800
<v Speaker 1>appeal and they rejected that. If that happens, that is

0:08:10.840 --> 0:08:13.600
<v Speaker 1>the end of the road for appeals and the Federal

0:08:13.640 --> 0:08:17.000
<v Speaker 1>Court's judgment is final, So there would be no other

0:08:17.040 --> 0:08:20.040
<v Speaker 1>avenues for Bruce Lehmon to continue to try and progress

0:08:20.080 --> 0:08:20.600
<v Speaker 1>this case.

0:08:20.720 --> 0:08:24.480
<v Speaker 2>Do we know if he is planning to appeal the appeal.

0:08:24.960 --> 0:08:29.120
<v Speaker 1>Lots of appeals In that one sentence, Yes, AAP is

0:08:29.200 --> 0:08:33.760
<v Speaker 1>reporting that Lehman is planning to appeal his appeal, So

0:08:34.040 --> 0:08:35.760
<v Speaker 1>we're going to have to wait and see if that's

0:08:35.800 --> 0:08:40.160
<v Speaker 1>the case. There are obviously costs involved as well, so

0:08:40.320 --> 0:08:41.440
<v Speaker 1>we'll keep an eye on that one.

0:08:41.960 --> 0:08:44.839
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, and I think if we look at what Bruce

0:08:44.880 --> 0:08:48.439
<v Speaker 2>Lemon's lawyer, Zali Burrows was saying outside of court yesterday,

0:08:48.960 --> 0:08:52.719
<v Speaker 2>it certainly sounds like they are maybe interested in continuing

0:08:52.800 --> 0:08:57.280
<v Speaker 2>to defend this. Burrows said, quote, Bruce is really overwhelmed.

0:08:57.400 --> 0:08:59.520
<v Speaker 2>I just want everyone to remember that at the heart

0:08:59.520 --> 0:09:01.320
<v Speaker 2>of the matter, we have a young man who was

0:09:01.400 --> 0:09:05.800
<v Speaker 2>accused of rape at Parliament House. Bruce's life has been destroyed.

0:09:06.080 --> 0:09:08.880
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, and that's certainly the type of language that's been

0:09:09.000 --> 0:09:10.200
<v Speaker 1>used this whole time.

0:09:10.360 --> 0:09:11.120
<v Speaker 2>Yes, exactly.

0:09:11.480 --> 0:09:14.320
<v Speaker 1>I should say not just in this case, but in

0:09:14.440 --> 0:09:18.400
<v Speaker 1>other cases, so not to confuse listeners, but this is

0:09:18.520 --> 0:09:20.440
<v Speaker 1>likely not to be the last time that we hear

0:09:20.480 --> 0:09:24.720
<v Speaker 1>about Bruce Lehman in the headlines, even this week. Bruce

0:09:24.800 --> 0:09:28.480
<v Speaker 1>Lehman is actually also due to face court in Tasmania

0:09:28.880 --> 0:09:33.800
<v Speaker 1>today for a separate case that is in regards to

0:09:34.320 --> 0:09:37.800
<v Speaker 1>an allegation that he stole a car in Tasmania in

0:09:38.000 --> 0:09:42.360
<v Speaker 1>November last year, and that case has been postponed for

0:09:42.400 --> 0:09:45.360
<v Speaker 1>a number of reasons. Lehman's lawyers argue that there were

0:09:45.480 --> 0:09:48.160
<v Speaker 1>medical reasons why he couldn't appear before the court and

0:09:48.200 --> 0:09:51.280
<v Speaker 1>so that's been delayed until now where he is again,

0:09:51.600 --> 0:09:54.960
<v Speaker 1>as I said, expected to face court on that charge.

0:09:54.720 --> 0:09:58.439
<v Speaker 2>Completely separate to the defamation and the parliament House allegations.

0:09:58.640 --> 0:10:01.640
<v Speaker 1>Correct, But there is also a another case, a third one.

0:10:01.679 --> 0:10:04.920
<v Speaker 1>There is a third and also separate case. Bruce Lemon

0:10:04.960 --> 0:10:08.680
<v Speaker 1>has also been accused of rape into Woomba in Queensland.

0:10:09.000 --> 0:10:11.520
<v Speaker 1>While the defamation case that we've been speaking about throughout

0:10:11.520 --> 0:10:14.480
<v Speaker 1>this podcast is a civil case, as I mentioned, this

0:10:14.520 --> 0:10:17.600
<v Speaker 1>one is a criminal case in regards to the charge

0:10:17.720 --> 0:10:20.920
<v Speaker 1>of rape. These charges were first heard in court in

0:10:21.000 --> 0:10:25.240
<v Speaker 1>January of twenty twenty three and that trial is forthcoming.

0:10:25.280 --> 0:10:28.240
<v Speaker 1>We don't really have much more information. We do know

0:10:28.400 --> 0:10:32.240
<v Speaker 1>that Zali Burrow's, the lawyer who has defended Bruce Lemon

0:10:32.640 --> 0:10:36.040
<v Speaker 1>in the civil case, is expected to be defending him

0:10:36.080 --> 0:10:39.640
<v Speaker 1>here as well. So again there is a lot happening,

0:10:39.720 --> 0:10:42.439
<v Speaker 1>a lot of different court cases, all kind of happening

0:10:42.440 --> 0:10:44.280
<v Speaker 1>at the same time, but we will be sure to

0:10:45.000 --> 0:10:46.800
<v Speaker 1>update listeners as we learn more.

0:10:47.120 --> 0:10:49.800
<v Speaker 2>Thank you so much, Zara for breaking that all down

0:10:49.920 --> 0:10:53.640
<v Speaker 2>for us, so just to recap, the appeal could yet

0:10:53.679 --> 0:10:58.320
<v Speaker 2>be appealed in the High Court TBC. Lemon is appearing

0:10:58.360 --> 0:11:01.160
<v Speaker 2>in Tasmania for a separate case this week about the

0:11:01.200 --> 0:11:05.040
<v Speaker 2>alleged stolen car, and there is that criminal case regarding

0:11:05.160 --> 0:11:09.199
<v Speaker 2>the rape allegation into Woomba, Queensland. Correct lots to keep

0:11:09.240 --> 0:11:11.560
<v Speaker 2>an eye on, and we will continue to do so

0:11:11.679 --> 0:11:13.880
<v Speaker 2>here at The Daily OS. Zara, Thank you so.

0:11:13.920 --> 0:11:16.640
<v Speaker 1>Much, Thank you em and thank you for joining us

0:11:16.640 --> 0:11:19.600
<v Speaker 1>for another episode of The Daily OS. If you need support,

0:11:19.720 --> 0:11:22.640
<v Speaker 1>please reach out to one eight hundred. Respect, take care

0:11:22.679 --> 0:11:28.880
<v Speaker 1>of yourself, and we'll be back again later today. My

0:11:29.000 --> 0:11:31.920
<v Speaker 1>name is Lily Madden and I'm a proud Arunda Bungelung

0:11:32.000 --> 0:11:36.320
<v Speaker 1>Calcuttin woman from Gadighl Country. The Daily oz acknowledges that

0:11:36.400 --> 0:11:38.840
<v Speaker 1>this podcast is recorded on the lands of the Gadighl

0:11:38.880 --> 0:11:42.200
<v Speaker 1>people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait

0:11:42.280 --> 0:11:45.199
<v Speaker 1>Island and nations. We pay our respects to the first

0:11:45.200 --> 0:11:47.720
<v Speaker 1>peoples of these countries, both past and present,