Andrew L. Urban
Now that Bruce Lehrmann’s appeal against the negative result in his defamation case against TEN and Lisa Wilkinson has been dismissed in the Federal Court, the legal quagmire has deepened. He is living in the hell of legal purgatory. This is not a victory for the rule of law.
“Bruce Lehrmann is a rapist! Bruce Lehrmann is a rapist!” twice for good measure, said Justin Quill of the lawfirm Thomson Geer, who had acted for Network Ten, direct to TV cameras after Justice Lee’s judgement (on the balance of probabilities).
Chris Merritt, vice president of the Rule of Law Institute of Australia noted when Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation case failed, back in June 2024:
Lehrmann has not been convicted by Justice Lee or anyone else on a criminal charge of rape. Under the criminal law he is not a rapist.
So while a defamation judgement on the lower civil standard of proof has upheld the truth of the imputation that he is a rapist, that is not the case under criminal law.
This will remain so even if Lehrmann loses his appeal in the defamation case.
The blame for this appalling position rests with the authorities in the ACT who stopped the criminal case against Lehrmann because of what they said was concern for the wellbeing of his accuser, Brittany Higgins. That decision stripped Lehrmann of his right to have the accusation against him tested against the rigours of the criminal law.
Describing Lehrmann as a rapist without explaining the significant differences between defamation and criminal justice – and the failure of the ACT justice system – only adds to confusion and relieves the ACT authorities of the odium that is rightfully theirs.
The negative impact on Lehrmann is the same as a criminal verdict: on getting a job, renting a home, mixing socially, forming relationships … just doing the shopping as a widely publicised, recognisable man.
Quinn’s triumphant cries outside the court exemplify the problem to which Merritt refers, the stripping of Lehrmann “of his right to have the accusation tested against the rigours of the criminal law”.
His lawyer Zali Burrows has said that Lehrmann will seek leave to appeal to the High Court. But whether he is given leave and appeals or refused leave and sinks further into disrepute, the legal system has left a mess on the country’s living room carpet.
Had the Brittany Higgins cheer squad not weaponised the alleged rape as a political tool with its false allegation of a political cover up to hurt the Morrison government …. [you fill in the blanks].
Yes, it’s a big cover-up of the original “cover-up” narrative that prevailed for years. And all the media now focussing on the politician travel expense stories but not the tax payer funded lawyers engaged to fight lengthy civil claims brought by L Reynolds and F Brown.
Looking at the 32 page Appeal Judgement again, with many pages taken up on the topics of consent, reckless, indifference – there are a few issues where the whole of the evidence may not have been taken into account.
* 41 References to Justice Lee’s findings about what was in the mind of B Lehrmann in the Uber on the way to Parliament House – dominant thought to have sex with B Higgins, and wanting to secure her agreement, and so said he had some whisky to show her…
I thought the evidence was that BH and BL had talked about a storm in QLD that night (so were they looking at their phones?), one would think it likely they discussed the evening – as they were political/media advisors out with Aides De Camps of high level positions eg -Chief of Defence, Navy, Gov-General? and Ministers on the eve of an election, or possibly that their friends at 88MPH AW and LG left in a taxi together, (BL said in his police interview that AW told him the two were close that night). BL had also told the police he’d seen officials from the Intelligence community at the Dock. Why wasn’t the Uber driver called to give evidence? Was there any follow-up re the Intelligence people?
* Also, what evidence did the Dock CCTV show that BL and BH were close? Was there physical contact? Did Dock CCTV show BH in physical contact with other men? If so, why not shown?
* Why no CCTV of the Club 88MPH? LG and NI who were both at The Dock knew the name of the Club and NI was in communication with BH that week – eg walk to passport office, so why did BH tell Police she did not know the name of the Nightclub? There can’t be many dance clubs in Canberra open at 1am and 88MPH looks close to a Canberra city police station, so why didn’t police make a visit?
* Whisky – didn’t BL tell FB he had gone to the office to drink whisky, as he had done that before and he did not want to say he’d been working on QT folders? He’d already had the classified doc security breach a few days earlier, where CP had made an official report (unknown to BL at the time). If NI said BH told her BL had brought her back for whisky, why hadn’t BH said that? How did NI find out about the whisky story?
* Justice Lee did not accept BL had to return for his keys as he did not want to wake his partner. So Lee did not accept that someone who came back home later than planned might not want get their partner out of bed to open the door. Perhaps Justice Lee did not read the BL medical report on Fed Court file where a previous partner of BL had thrown a cup?glass? at him and injured his hand?
* Appeal judgment quotes Lee on BL knowing that BH was intoxicated, encouraged her drinking etc. Lehrmann’s lawyer prepared a video of drinks based on raw CCTV. Justice Lee prepared a drinks table but it shows BL did not walk into the Dock until after BH had been given or bought herself 5 drinks – 2 bought herself, 2 bought by Nick the Bumble date, 1 bought by male ADC JT, and then one bought by male friend she embraced at bar , (though unclear if all were fully consumed and unclear if any were non-alcoholic). BL buys her 2 drinks but Justice Lee drinks table does not include 3 rounds bought by female colleague NI. This also does not seem to be shown in the Alcohol Expert’s report but perhaps they did not have the full CCTV.
*If they were both so inebriated by the time they got to Parl House, why did 2 security guards let them in? The CCTV shows BH and BL conversing with the guards. BH could not put her strappy high heel shoes on quickly and she picked them up and ran to catch up to the guard and BL. Very difficult to put those sorts of shoes on without raising foot or sitting down.
* Appeal judgment refers to Justice Lee re BL being in position of power over BH, but they worked in different areas (policy vs media), the evidence seemed to show tensions between other staff in the lead up to election they thought they’d lose, FB said BL’s flags around his desk caused disquiet amongst staff, there were issues about BL wanting a fridge moved. BH had texted her ex boyfriend BD about having to pack up office, tensions amongst staff, and she told him that she had been happy to hang out with Bruce (at some parl sitting matters, I think). She also asked BL for help with her work the first day back in the office and he said he would get her added to email distribution lists. Seems like he also bought her a coffee that day.
* Appeal Judgment refers to Justice Lee on the Kingston Hotel incident – that was where BL was supposed to have taken BH phone. But the evidence from witnesses seems to be it was more a case of policy staff BL and JW in tense exchange with media advisor NH who wanted to employ BH as media advisor on East Coast, and JW and BL asked to tell office seniors/minister they agreed with the Hamer’s appointment which JW primarily disagreed with. NH had them told them individually to shut the F up. I believe JW went to the office manager at the time about this so contemporaneous records of this incident. JW said at the Syd Defamation trial he did not think there had been a case of BL taking BH’s phone as he would have mentioned it at the time. NH wrote her resignation email as she walked home and then NH, BL and JW had a meeting with LT with the next day or so. Was the phone incident mentioned then?
* Contemporaneous Accounts – many seem to be what other people tell BH happened to her, eg CP, NI, security guards?, then later journalists. BH has stated she is unsure if what she remembers is from the time it happened or what people have told her happened.
Some other questions
* BH texted ex boyfriend she spent an evening at the Kingo with ABC 730 journos a few weeks before the incident- what was that about?
* Why weren’t the male ADCs called to give evidence of topics discussed at the Dock? According to Video shown at Syd Defamation trial, BL, BH, AW and LG spent considerable time at separate small table and ADCs also spent time at the table.
Isn’t it ironic how Labor ministers (eg the PM, Gallagher, Wong) claiming there was a political cover up, now try to cover up their erroneous claims.
Justin Quill’s apology to the Court re speech in Sydney 15 April 2024 – seems the focus is on his comments about Wilkinson’s Logies Speech: https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/117705/Affidavit-of-Justin-Quill-sworn-29-April-2024.pdf
A SMH tik tok video where he’s talking about Lehrmann “conning” the court: https://www.tiktok.com/@sydneymorningherald/video/7357953610514238727
The affidavit transcript does not seem to include all that was said that day!
Was the Logies speech an attempt to deliberately derail the crim trial?? Many PH staff and others had to give evidence and, in spite of the suppression order put in place as Higgins was granted a break in giving evidence, the inconsistencies became apparent. Also, the falsehoods re L Reynolds and F Brown not supporting Higgins.
The 3 Dec Judgment from Justices Wigney, Colvin and Abraham is 32 pages long. The hearing was 20-21 August. The 21 August 2019 Appeal Judgment in Pell was 120 pages long. The hearing date was 5-6 June 2019.
There are substantial sections in 3 Dec judgment which quote from Justice Lee’s Sydney Defamation trial judgment. But some of Lee’s statements (repeated in the recent judgment) do not seem to be fully supported by the evidence presented in Nov/Dec 2023.
*Lehrmann’s lawyer played the court a video from the raw CCTV – it showed that a female who worked in L Reynolds office bought multiple rounds of drinks towards the end of the evening and these were given to Higgins by herself and a male (who appears to have been the Aide-de-Camp to the Chief of the Defence Force at that time or shortly after. At the Sydney trial, witnesses B Higgins, LG and NI identified nearly all the people who were drinking at the Dock Hotel and info is in the public domain re employment). In his police statement, BL told Police he thought the Gov-General’s ADC was in attendance at the Dock.
* The Appeal judgment quotes staff member CP in relation to the highly publicised “log” reference. CP does not have an affidavit on the Sydney defamation trial website and it is unclear how he and Higgins came to communicate – did he approach her or vice versa. CP told the Syd Defamation trial that F Brown had said she was going to get the CCTV to find out “what had happened and that she should be able to “get to the bottom of what’s going on”?? CP also said Higgins asked him what he knew and he said the “AFP (?!) had found her in a state of undress”. But the female Security Guard states she found her naked at 4am, while BL had left at 220am? Seems a long time for the welfare check to take place, even if someone is on their tea break.
*Both judgments include texts between Higgins and ex partner BD the weekend after the incident but omit the text exchange 720am the actual morning of the alleged rape: BH told BD she needed to “slow down a bit, gotten a little out of hand recently haha… ha ha I just get myself into trouble, gotta keep that shit locked down”…explaining “just the standard shenanigans”.
* No investigators or judges asked for the Security Guard to be contacted who had text message exchanges with B Higgins the day of the alleged incident – surely important contemporaneous records.
Recent judgment includes: “Whilst at the nightclub, Mr Lehrmann and Ms Higgins exchanged a passionate kiss and were quite touchy with one another. ”
The evidence from AW at the Syd defamation trial was that he had no recollection of BH and BL kissing at 88MPH. It seems that AW and witness LG were close that night (according to BL police statement). In relation to kissing, according to exhibits on the ACT Inquiry into the Crim Justice System – LG said she remembered them kissing on the couch, but her friend NI said she’d been told they were kissing on the dance floor. BH never talked about any kissing at the nightclub. BL talked about dancing to 80s music. Conflicting details.
* From ACT Inquiry Crim Justice System – BL re QT folders
[Q101] I attended to some Question Time folders.
o Through the course of the evening, the discussions we were having with
Defence officials.
o While it was on my mind, I attended to some Question Time folders.
o We had a new minister heading into her first Questions Time.
o I wanted to ensure that – was part of my role to look after her.
o The discussions that we’d have.
o Particularly about some of the industry programs, particularly the Air Force.
• [Q573] Question Time brief – the big folders we have probably 4-5 of them.
• [Q576] Moving a lot of industry matters to the front that could have been controversial,
submarine program was certainly one of them which was a focus of mind.
• [Q582] a lot of it was, um, sticking tabs to certain topics that I recall from discussing with
the guys at The Dock.
• [Q587] We were theorising that the Labor Party might ask questions on Question Time, I
was just there, writing notes on the submarine issue and ensuring that the folder was in
a way that the minister was happy, it was readily accessible to her.
WIT.0030.0005.0003_0117
o Because you’re asked a question in Question Time, you have a matter of
seconds to find the relevant part.
• [Q602] I do remember doing a lot of writing, so, its also possible I didn’t (access
computer) because I was just writing notes on – while I was thinking of it.
• [Q584] We won’t alter them, we put a tag on them with our notes.
• [Q585] And the DLO can change them, we can redo them ourselves, but it was better to
do them through the department, so they can see the changes, then they wouldn’t send
up a brief that was the same, they would very likely.
• [Q443] I certainly recall fixing up the Question Time folders properly, and Monday they
were all fine.
• [Q609] I never left my desk [Q610] Or my own corner.
• [Q611] From memory I exited out the back door [Q612] Because my desk is up that end
There is something odious about the Bruce Lehrmann Brittany Higgins matter. That odour emanates from the parties which is somewhat overcome by that odour excreted by the politicians involved only to be totally consumed by that of the ACT Justice “just us” System
It is all about total incompetence from the the police investigation to the judiciary.
The politicians involved may well miss out on the incompetence award as it seems they have yet again proven, it is all about “just us” and survive with snouts firmly in the trough
I agree Bruce Lehrmann was NOT found guilty of rape by a criminal court. That he is branded as a “rapist ” in a Civil Court is a terrible injustice which has ruined his life . It shows how the so -called “Justice ” System can be manipulated to achieve a particular outcome. I have lost faith in the “Justice ” System a long time ago. Was he a rapist ? Who knows! It has never been conclusively proven . It was just an OPINION of some judges.
In my opinion, with the “Trojan Horse ” of restrictions on Free Speech (16 year age restrictions to Social Media) any criticism of government will be a thing of the past as we enter the Age of State Control in every aspect of our lives (Social Credit coming !) I escaped Communism only to find myself in another even worse called Australia in which I am probably being spied on for my opposition to eg Hizb Ut Tahrir , a declared Terrorist organisation in Western and moderate Moslem countries, but , not Australia . They held their “National Conference ” in Sydney on 23 November 2025.
Andrew. At one time the privy court in Westminster was the highest court of appeal for Australians to be done over by…the FINAL court of Appeal..
It was too late for Ray Bailey to have an independent London foot print expert examine his notorious Queensland Police written confession . After all – there are dingoe behavioural experts residing in Westminster.
Well now. We don’t need them English any more . We have the Channel 10 court of no representation and you are unlikely to win an appeal against their one judge verdict. Even when one sets aside the tooth paste commercials.
But – all things considered- it’s possible that a television court would do no worse than the Tasmanian judge / police prosecutor inquisitor outfit.
Bruce Lehrmann would be fertilising vegetables in Risdon prison …