Andrew L. Urban
Bruce Lehrmann has been refused special leave to appeal to the High Court against his Federal Court civil conviction but did not rule on the merits of the rape finding. It simply decided the proposed appeal did not raise a sufficiently arguable legal question to justify granting special leave.
“Special leave refused with costs,” the High Court said in a short judgment published on its website on Thursday (April 9, 2026). The High Court stated that the proposed grounds “have insufficient prospects of success”, and the case did not raise a question of law of public importance warranting High Court consideration.
The main grounds on which Lehrmann had sought special leave to appeal:
- Alleged judicial bias and use of extraneous material
Lehrmann argued that Justice Lee compromised impartiality by referring to or researching academic material about sexual-assault behaviour and trauma responses, which his lawyers said amounted to the judge conducting his own research rather than relying solely on evidence presented in court.
They argued that this denied procedural fairness and influenced credibility assessments.
- Procedural unfairness / natural justice
He contended that the trial process was procedurally unfair, particularly because the judge ultimately found a form of rape different from what he said had effectively been pleaded or argued during the trial.
His lawyers argued that:
- the case had been framed around allegations of violent rape,
- but the judge’s factual findings effectively described a non-violent sexual assault occurring without consent,
- and therefore Lehrmann was not given a fair opportunity to respond to that characterisation.
- Error by the Full Federal Court in strengthening the findings
When the Full Court dismissed his appeal in 2025, it went further than Justice Lee and stated that the only reasonable inference was that Lehrmann knew Higgins was not consenting but proceeded anyway.
In seeking High Court review, Lehrmann argued the appellate court exceeded the scope of the trial judge’s findings and made its own stronger factual conclusions.