Judge finds ex-staffer Bruce Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins inside Australian parliament

In a significant development in the years-long case which has rocked Australian politics, whereformer government staffer Bruce Lehrmann was accused of rape by his colleague, andhad sought to clear his name by suing one of the country’s largest television networks for defamation, was found guilty of the crime, on Monday (Apr 15).

What happened in court?

The verdict on Monday brings an end to the complex case involving government ministers, media personalities and political staff in several complicated legal and civil battles, which has captivated Australians and people worldwide since 2021.

Add WION as a Preferred Source

On Monday, Justice Michael Lee declared he was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities that Lehrmann raped his then-colleague Brittany Higgins in 2019.

“Mr Lehrmann raped Miss Higgins” and told “deliberate lies,” Lee said at the end of the lengthy ruling which took place in a Federal Court in Sydney.

Also Read |Iran to allow Indian govt representatives to meet 17 citizens onboard seized cargo ship

The verdict stems from Higgins’ allegations in 2021, who said that she was raped by a colleague in an exclusive television interview with Network Ten’s “The Project” programme, where she detailed how Lehrmann raped her inside Parliament House after a night of drinking in 2019.

This led to a criminal trial a year later where Lehrmann pleaded not guilty to one charge of sexual intercourse without consent and denied that any sexual activity occurred.

However, the 2022 criminal trial was aborted due to one juror's misconduct, in December of that year. The prosecutors later dropped the charges against Lehrmann saying that a retrial would pose a risk to Higgins’ mental health.

Lee also noted how Lehrmann had escaped without any charges but went on to sue the network for defamation, a move which backfired and has now led to him being labelled a rapist.

“Having escaped the lion’s den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat,” said the judge.

Lee found that the two had sex that night, but since Higgins was so inebriated she could not have possibly given her consent, and that Lehrmann did not seek to obtain it.

The judge also considered it “more likely than not in those early hours, after a long night of conviviality and drinking and having successfully brought Ms Higgins back to a secluded place, Mr Lehrmann was hellbent on having sex” with Higgins and was “indifferent” to whether she wanted to as well.

Therefore, Lee ruled in favour of the Australian network. Notably, the standard of proof in defamation cases is lower than in criminal proceedings as judges are required to make findings about the case only on the balance of probabilities, rather than the “beyond reasonable doubt”.

However, he was also critical of the media outlet saying that the rape allegations were intertwined with the cover-up and the program’s team had “strong indications of the unreliability of their main source”.

‘Omnishambles’

Lee found that accusations of Higgins’ bosses in the Liberal Party had tried to cover up the allegations or pressure her was “objectively short on facts, but long on speculation”. Overall, the judge said, the case has been an “omnishambles”.

Also Read |Israeli envoy Naor Gilon recognises Indian de-escalation efforts amid conflict with Iran

He also criticised the network for its approach to seeking a comment from Lehrmann saying there were better ways to get in touch with him. “He was not living the life of a hermit,” said Lee.

After the ruling, Lehrmann left the court and did not make any comment to the reporters standing outside.

Higgins’ claims were dramatically reported on by the network, during which she had not named Lehrmann. However, he accused the show’s presenter Lisa Wilkinson of damaging his reputation after she provided enough information during the programme to know it was him.

Lee after examining notes, texts, social media messages, emails, hours of audio and CCTV footage of the night in question.

The judge found that he was a “far surer guide” about what happened that night than the testimonies of either Lehrmann or Higgins calling her also an “unsatisfactory witness”.

(With inputs from agencies)