Speaker 1: Already, and this is the Daily This is the Daily Off,
Speaker 1: This is the Daily ohs oh.
Speaker 2: Now it makes sense.
Speaker 1: Just a quick trigger warning. We'll be talking about sexual
Speaker 1: assault in today's episode. Help is available at one eight
Speaker 1: hundred respect that's one eight hundred seven three seven seven.
Speaker 2: Three to two.
Speaker 1: At their website. They've got online chat and video chat
Speaker 1: as well.
Speaker 3: Good morning, and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Tuesday,
Speaker 3: the sixteenth of April. I'm Sam, I'm Lucy. Yesterday, Justice
Speaker 3: Michael Lee handed down his judgment in the defamation case
Speaker 3: Bruce Lehman brought against journalist Lisa Wilkinson and Network ten,
Speaker 3: finding that it was more likely than not that Lherman
Speaker 3: raped fellow liberal staffer Britney Higgins in twenty nineteen and
Speaker 3: therefore was not defamed.
Speaker 4: Mister Lherman raped Mishiggins.
Speaker 3: I sincerely hope that this judgment gives strength to women
Speaker 3: around the country.
Speaker 4: Having escaped the lines dean, mister Lehman made the mistake
Speaker 4: of coming back for his head.
Speaker 3: There is nothing simple or straightforward about this case. But
Speaker 3: today TDF fact checker Lucy Tassel and I will endeavor
Speaker 3: to unpack it. But first, Lucy what's making headlines.
Speaker 1: The New South Wales Coroner has been granted extra funding
Speaker 1: for its inquest into the mass stabbing at Bondai Junction
Speaker 1: in Sydney's East last weekend. The Coroner's Court has been
Speaker 1: allocated an additional eighteen million dollars in funding, which covers
Speaker 1: trauma informed care for victims and families. Six people were
Speaker 1: killed and the attacker was shot by police. New South
Speaker 1: Wales Police Commissioner Karen Webb said it's obvious to me,
Speaker 1: it's obvious to detectives that the offender focused on women
Speaker 1: and avoided the men. The government has said its approach
Speaker 1: to this is similar to the Lint Cafe siege in
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen.
Speaker 3: A church leader and several worshippers were stabbed at Christ
Speaker 3: the Good Shepherd church in Sydney's West last night. The
Speaker 3: event was live streamed now. According to New Southwales Police,
Speaker 3: the injured people suffered non life threatening injuries and were
Speaker 3: treated by New South Wales Ambulance paramedics before being sent
Speaker 3: to hospital. Following the incident, crowds gathered at the location
Speaker 3: and police launched a wild scale public order operation. Two
Speaker 3: police officers were injured, including one who was hit with
Speaker 3: a brick and a number of police vehicles sustained damage.
Speaker 1: A Victorian court has fined betting company Blue Bet fifty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars for breaching advertising rules by putting ads on
Speaker 1: public roads. The state's Gambling Commission took the company to
Speaker 1: court after an investigation found Blue Bet placed billboards across
Speaker 1: freeways in Victoria in quote the prime position to target
Speaker 1: man aged fifteen to fifty four. Magistrate Greg Thomas said
Speaker 1: the breach shows quote a high degree of negligence by
Speaker 1: Blue Bet, which had pleaded guilty to.
Speaker 3: The charges, and today's good news. Over the weekends, the
Speaker 3: A League Women may history, setting a new Australian record
Speaker 3: for the most attended season of women's sport in the
Speaker 3: semi final between the Newcastle Jets and the Central Coast Mariners.
Speaker 3: Over the weekend, A League Women became the most attended
Speaker 3: season in Australian history. The cumulative number of spectators reached
Speaker 3: nearly three hundred thousand people that surpassed the previous record
Speaker 3: held by the twenty twenty three AFL Women's regular season. So,
Speaker 3: just before we get started, I just wanted to make
Speaker 3: one quick note. Tda's editor in chief is Billye fitz Simon's,
Speaker 3: who is the daughter of Lisa Wilkinson. Billy had no
Speaker 3: editorial oversight or involvement with this story or any post
Speaker 3: we've made about this story's developments.
Speaker 2: That's right.
Speaker 1: Yesterday, Sam, we watched Federal Court Judge Michael Lee hand
Speaker 1: down a judgment in a case that has, I think
Speaker 1: it's safe to say, really captured the nation's attention. I mean,
Speaker 1: just looking at the numbers on the Federal Court live
Speaker 1: stream yesterday, forty four thousand people at its peak, and
Speaker 1: we can assume more watching on TVs as it was
Speaker 1: also broadcast in part on TV. I think it could
Speaker 1: be easy, certainly for me, it is kind of years
Speaker 1: and years down the track to lose sight of the
Speaker 1: actual origin of this case. Why so many people took
Speaker 1: time out of their days.
Speaker 3: To watch a very dry, very upsetting one camera.
Speaker 1: For many hours to watch a judgment in a defamation
Speaker 1: case be handed down.
Speaker 2: So can you take me back to the start.
Speaker 3: So to do that, we have to go back to
Speaker 3: twenty nineteen and Brittany Higgins and Bruce Lehman were staffers
Speaker 3: for Defense Minister Linda Reynolds in Canberra and as Justice
Speaker 3: Lee outlined in court yesterday, his understanding of the facts
Speaker 3: is that the two went out for drinks after work
Speaker 3: with a big group of friends to several venues around Canberra.
Speaker 3: Then they returned to Parliament House, their workplace, and went
Speaker 3: into Reynolds' office and this was the early hours of
Speaker 3: the next morning. Now Justice Lee f that it's more
Speaker 3: likely than not, and we're going to come back to
Speaker 3: what exactly that means that Bruce Lehmon raped Britney Higgins
Speaker 3: at that office.
Speaker 1: So that's March twenty nineteen. That's a long way from
Speaker 1: April twenty twenty four. What has happened in those intervening years.
Speaker 3: So then we fast forward two years to February of
Speaker 3: twenty twenty one, and that's when Brittany Higgins went to
Speaker 3: the media with these allegations that she had been raped
Speaker 3: in Parliament House by an unnamed at that point political staffer,
Speaker 3: which we now know is Bruce Lemon. And I just
Speaker 3: want to be really clear in a criminal court he
Speaker 3: has always denied this, and in fact he's always denied
Speaker 3: any sexual contact happened between them. Higgins sat down with
Speaker 3: interviews with news dot Com today U Samantha Maiden was
Speaker 3: the journalist there and with journalist Lisa Wilkinson who was
Speaker 3: then working with the Network ten show the project, the
Speaker 3: interview with Wilkinson and the story in news dot com
Speaker 3: do U came out on the same day. That was
Speaker 3: February fifteenth, twenty twenty one.
Speaker 2: That was a huge day. That was really it's.
Speaker 3: Really a nation defining story.
Speaker 1: It was an inflection point, you know, up until this
Speaker 1: point and then everything changes after that. So you've mentioned
Speaker 1: that this case that Luhrman's brought this case against Lisa
Speaker 1: wilkinsoner Network ten, but you have mentioned news dot com
Speaker 1: dot AU, So were they also being sued.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they were also being sued, and so was the
Speaker 3: ABC for broadcasting a speech by Higgins, as well as
Speaker 3: Wilkinson and Network ten. But Lherman actually settled the cases
Speaker 3: with news dot com, to U and ABC on the
Speaker 3: first day of these exact proceedings last year.
Speaker 1: So we've started with these very publicized allegations, but they're
Speaker 1: made against a person who we don't know who they are.
Speaker 1: It's an unnamed person. So how do we get to
Speaker 1: knowing who Bruce Lehman is? How do we get from
Speaker 1: anonymous person not named, not described to, or not specifically
Speaker 1: described to the person able to breed a defamation case.
Speaker 3: Well, this is actually the first bit of what Justice
Speaker 3: Lee needed to establish in his judgment yesterday, because in
Speaker 3: order to sue someone for defamation, you need to make
Speaker 3: it clear that they're talking about you. And Justice Lee
Speaker 3: found that, Yeah, a reasonable person would ascertain that the
Speaker 3: person who was the subject of Britney Higgins's comments in
Speaker 3: that project interview was Bruce Lehman, even though Brittney Higgins
Speaker 3: didn't specify the name of who she alleged had raped her.
Speaker 3: But you know, one of the first things that Justice
Speaker 3: Lee found was that he was identifiable. Justice Lee said
Speaker 3: he was quote amply satisfied that Lehman was identified, and
Speaker 3: this was based on evidence given by witnesses that he
Speaker 3: described as quote telltale.
Speaker 2: So what was this telltale evidence?
Speaker 3: Well, Justice Lee turned to the fact that Lehman and
Speaker 3: Higgins had been at drinks on the night in question,
Speaker 3: that he was at the time of the interview working
Speaker 3: in Sydney, which Lehman was, and some loose details about
Speaker 3: the job he'd had before working for Reynolds. And all
Speaker 3: of this, a few other points were enough for some
Speaker 3: witnesses with quote specific knowledge of the situation to know
Speaker 3: who Higgins was talking about. So picture somebody you know
Speaker 3: watching this interview on television. These facts started to emerge
Speaker 3: in Britney Higgins's interview. That was enough to really say, yes,
Speaker 3: I think I know who they're talking about.
Speaker 1: And we saw some of that evidence being tendered in
Speaker 1: the trial of like various group chats various people within
Speaker 1: Lehman's life kind of saying we think that he was
Speaker 1: probably the subject of this interview that we're all watching.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but the public only really became aware of Bruce
Speaker 3: Lehman as the subject of this when the matter proceeded
Speaker 3: to a criminal trial in twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So what happened with that criminal.
Speaker 3: Trial, Well, that trial was suspended due to DURA misconducts
Speaker 3: and a retrial was later abandoned. And I think that's
Speaker 3: what makes this defamation case really notable because there was
Speaker 3: never a criminal finding the way about what happened on
Speaker 3: that night in March twenty nineteen, and there still isn't
Speaker 3: and I think that's an important point. But now there
Speaker 3: is a civil finding. But this case, yeah, really moved
Speaker 3: into then the question of reputational damage.
Speaker 1: So Lehman believes that he's been identified despite not being
Speaker 1: named in this original interview. That kind of gets the
Speaker 1: ball rolling on this. And now that there hasn't been
Speaker 1: a criminal trial, his name is just sort of out
Speaker 1: there associated with this unproven allegation. So is that what
Speaker 1: kind of brings him to this point of bringing a
Speaker 1: defamation case exactly?
Speaker 3: And then this kind of forms then the second and
Speaker 3: third parts of what Justice Lee needed to establish to
Speaker 3: work out whether Lehman had been defamed. And so once
Speaker 3: we'd established that it was in fact Lehman who was
Speaker 3: the subject of the interview, we then move on to
Speaker 3: is the content of the interview the claims made against Lehman?
Speaker 3: Are they true or not? And if they were true,
Speaker 3: then Channel ten and Lisa Wilkinson could rely on what's
Speaker 3: called the truth defense. So in order to kind of
Speaker 3: prove for the truth defense, it almost became a forensic
Speaker 3: trial in nature. There were witnesses being called who were
Speaker 3: on security at Parliament House that night, there were people
Speaker 3: who were at the drinks, there was ex partners of
Speaker 3: both parties. Because what the court needed to ascertain is
Speaker 3: whether or not what Channel ten were claiming about Bruce
Speaker 3: Lehman was true, but they needed to do so not
Speaker 3: beyond the reasonable doubt, but on the balance of probabilities.
Speaker 1: So I definitely have heard the phrase beyond a reasonable
Speaker 1: doubt used before in terms of criminal cases.
Speaker 2: So what's the balance of probabilities? How's that different?
Speaker 3: So in the criminal system and the civil system, there's
Speaker 3: two different burdens of proof, and a burden of proof
Speaker 3: is the words used to describe what a party needs
Speaker 3: to prove in order to prosecute the case. Now, in
Speaker 3: the criminal system, the burden of proof is beyond the
Speaker 3: reasonable doubt, and what that essentially means is in the
Speaker 3: mind of the judge or a jury, there needs to
Speaker 3: be no doubt in their mind that what is being
Speaker 3: claimed did indeed happen. So think about something like speeding
Speaker 3: in your car. It's beyond a reasonable doubt because you
Speaker 3: were either going one hundred klumeter this hour or you
Speaker 3: weren't going one hundred klometers an hour, And so it's
Speaker 3: the job of a prosecutor to really prove that there's
Speaker 3: absolutely no doubt that this happened. In a civil system,
Speaker 3: we use a burden of proof called the balance of probabilities.
Speaker 3: And the question that needs to be answered here is
Speaker 3: is it more likely than not that something happened. So
Speaker 3: think about it almost as like fifty one percent. Is
Speaker 3: it fifty one percent likely that this happened, And there's
Speaker 3: more chance that it did happen than it didn't happen.
Speaker 3: And so that was the level of proof that Justice
Speaker 3: Lee was looking at when making his determination yesterday. And
Speaker 3: Justice Lee did find that it is more likely than
Speaker 3: not that Lehmann did rape Higgins in Minister Reynolds's office
Speaker 3: in March twenty nineteen.
Speaker 4: I consider it more likely than not in those early
Speaker 4: hours mister Lehman was held bent on having sex with
Speaker 4: a woman he found sixtually attracted. He's pursuit of Grantiford cushion.
Speaker 4: He did not here one way or the other, whether
Speaker 4: miss Higgins understood or agreed to what was going on.
Speaker 4: Mister Lhermann raped mis Higgins.
Speaker 1: So it really has come down to it's a lower
Speaker 1: kind of burden of proof than a criminal finding. Bruce
Speaker 1: Lemon's not going to jail.
Speaker 3: Over this, no, So these have no relevance in the
Speaker 3: kind of criminal world in terms of the criminal justice system.
Speaker 3: Bruce Lemon has neither been found guilty or not guilty.
Speaker 3: The trial was never finished.
Speaker 2: So there's obviously a lot to this case.
Speaker 1: That being said, though, so Justice Michael Lee has handed
Speaker 1: down a three hundred page plus decision. So what else
Speaker 1: was kind of in that judgment?
Speaker 3: Well, look, there was a lot and you know, we
Speaker 3: have this three hundred page decision that when printed would
Speaker 3: look and feel like a novel. We also had yesterday
Speaker 3: I think it was two and a half hours of
Speaker 3: judgment delivered felt like more. Yeah, it was very long,
Speaker 3: and so there's lots of an analysis by Justice Lee.
Speaker 3: He goes through systematically every witness, almost to us called
Speaker 3: discusses the reliability of everybody from Britney Higgins, Bruce Lehman,
Speaker 3: Lisa Wilkinson, everybody involved in the case really and what
Speaker 3: he found, notably was that Bruce Lehman was found to
Speaker 3: have told quote deliberate lies about quote important issues in
Speaker 3: the case.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Now, he also said that Higgins, who testified in the
Speaker 3: case to support ten and Wilkinson's case, had said quote
Speaker 3: untruths or distortions herself throughout giving evidence. But something really
Speaker 3: important to note here, and I was quite impressed that
Speaker 3: Justice Lee went into this was he said that lawyers
Speaker 3: on both sides had agreed that quote, trauma has a
Speaker 3: severe impact on memory by splintering and fragmenting memories, inconsistencies
Speaker 3: often observed in reliable reports of sexual assault, and is
Speaker 3: not in and of itself a measure of deception.
Speaker 1: That's amazing because that's something that we certainly have read
Speaker 1: about in scientific articles, but it feels rare for that
Speaker 1: to have come up in a high profile case like.
Speaker 3: This, definitely, and I think it will be used by
Speaker 3: other courts throughout Australia as a model for how to
Speaker 3: incorporate a trauma based response to these types of cases totally.
Speaker 1: And that also includes he found on the balance of
Speaker 1: probabilities that there was a trauma that informed this.
Speaker 3: Case exactly, and so then you know, putting all those
Speaker 3: parts together, Whilst he found that Ten and Wilkinson did
Speaker 3: identify Lehman in the broadcast, he found that Ten and
Speaker 3: Wilkinson could rely on this truth defense and therefore Ten
Speaker 3: and Wilkinson were not held liable for defamation from Lehman.
Speaker 3: So that leaves us in a very interesting position.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so what happens.
Speaker 3: Now, Well, we have another court date, and that's the
Speaker 3: twenty second of April, so we don't have to wait
Speaker 3: too long for that, and that's when parties submit what's
Speaker 3: called costs, and costs is essentially think of it as
Speaker 3: a receipt of how much it had cost for the
Speaker 3: legal representation that the parties have had to have to
Speaker 3: present their case at this trial. And what typically happens.
Speaker 3: And we don't know whether this is going to happen
Speaker 3: for sure, but it's reasonably likely there I am sounding
Speaker 3: like a civil lawyer. It's reasonably likely that it is
Speaker 3: going to happen is that Lhman will be ordered to
Speaker 3: either partially or fully cover the legal costs of ten
Speaker 3: and Wilkinson. And this is almost a recognition from the
Speaker 3: court that in failing to convince the court of his argument,
Speaker 3: somebody has to foot the bill, right And so I
Speaker 3: mean that could be in the millions of dollars and
Speaker 3: we're not going to know exactly how much that is
Speaker 3: until the twenty second of April. That's when the parties
Speaker 3: have to submit their cost to the court and then
Speaker 3: Justice League will go back and review them and work
Speaker 3: out how much Bruce Lehman has to pay. Now It's
Speaker 3: really important that we also acknowledge that Bruce Lehmon has
Speaker 3: the option to appeal this civil case. So whilst it
Speaker 3: might feel like a conclusion in the end of the road,
Speaker 3: it's not exactly the end of this story, I.
Speaker 1: See, And certainly there are we won't touch on them today,
Speaker 1: but certainly there are other legal actions from other parties
Speaker 1: in this case. We have not heard the last of it,
Speaker 1: but at least for today we have a finding sam
Speaker 1: Justice Michael Lee has developed a reputation for having little
Speaker 1: one liners throughout this very dark case that have really
Speaker 1: been kind of a silver lining. Can you I think
Speaker 1: my favorite was when he said that mister Lhman had
Speaker 1: quote escaped the lions den but gone back for his hat.
Speaker 2: Can you explain what that means?
Speaker 3: Yeah, he certainly was entertaining during the judgment, and it
Speaker 3: did make watching the two and a half hour broadcast
Speaker 3: with you a little more enjoyable. But I think this
Speaker 3: phrase really does hit an important point and one important
Speaker 3: for us to end on. And by saying that he
Speaker 3: escaped the line and went back to get his hat
Speaker 3: or whatever exactly, the phrase was. What the Justice is
Speaker 3: saying is Bruce Lehem and brought this case on himself,
Speaker 3: and he was the one who brought to the court
Speaker 3: the claim of defamation that triggered this long, detail oriented
Speaker 3: exposure of what happened that night in Parliament House and
Speaker 3: indeed a huge judgment yesterday that essentially degraded Lehman's character
Speaker 3: from the Federal Court of Australia. I thought it was
Speaker 3: a really apt expression. There's now been a couple of
Speaker 3: these defamation cases in Australia where people have brought an action,
Speaker 3: bringing their particular case back into the center of the
Speaker 3: media spotlight and then lost. And yeah, he certainly did,
Speaker 3: you know, escape the lion, but went back to get
Speaker 3: his hat and got bidden.
Speaker 2: Yeah, was the hat really worth it?
Speaker 3: That's an interesting question. So, as I said, Lehman can
Speaker 3: still appeal this case. He has still maintained his innocence
Speaker 3: in a criminal court. But a big moment in defamation
Speaker 3: law and in media law here in Australia.
Speaker 1: If these episodes brought anything up for you, you can
Speaker 1: call one eight hundred respect which is one eight hundred
Speaker 1: seven three seven seven three two and at their website
Speaker 1: they've got online chats and video calls.
Speaker 3: My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda
Speaker 3: Bunjelung Calgaton woman from Gadighl country. The Daily oz acknowledges
Speaker 3: that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the
Speaker 3: Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and torrest
Speaker 3: Rate island and nations.
Speaker 1: We pay our respects to the first peoples of these countries,
Speaker 1: both past and present.