‘Entirely misconceived’: Wilkinson lashes Lehrmann appeal

Lisa Wilkinson’s legal team has hit back at Bruce Lehrmann’s attempt to overturn his damaging defamation suit loss, describing it as “entirely misconceived” and denying he suffered unfairness.

Mr Lehrmann last year lost his high-stakes multi-million dollar lawsuit against Ten and Ms Wilkinson over a The Project interview with Brittany Higgins, in which she alleged she was raped by a colleague inside Parliament House in March 2019.

Justice Michael Lee found – on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities – that Mr Lehrmann had raped Ms Higgins, however the former Liberal staffer is seeking to have those findings overturned on appeal.

In an outline of submissions filed with the court, Mr Lehrmann’s solicitor Zali Burrows said that Justice Lee’s findings were inconsistent with both Ms Higgins’ and Mr Lehrmann’s version of events.

Mr Lehrmann has maintained his innocence and told the court during his evidence that no sexual contact occurred.

In her evidence, Ms Higgins said she told Mr Lehrmann “no on a loop”.

Justice Lee found that he was not satisfied that Ms Higgins said “no on a loop” and it was more likely than not “that she was passive … during the entirety of the sexual act.”

Ms Burrows argued the discrepancies were significant and argued Mr Lehrmann should have been questioned further about whether he was reckless.

But in written submissions to the court, Ms Wilkinson’s legal team of barristers Sue Chrysanthou SC and Barry Dean argued that the appeal ground was “entirely misconceived”.

During the trial, Mr Lehrmann was asked by Ten’s barrister Dr Matt Collins whether Ms Higgins had consented to sex.

“I didn’t get consent because I didn’t have sexual intercourse,” Mr Lehrmann replied.

Ms Wilkinson’s lawyers say in their submission: “At trial Mr Lehrmann’s lawyers were of the view that it was unfair to ask him about consent because he had denied sexual intercourse.

“They now apparently take the view that it was unfair to him to not have asked him specific questions about consent.”

They say it is “difficult to see” how he was “denied natural justice or procedural fairness” because he was not questioned further.

“Given his emphatic denials of sexual intercourse or any similar intimate interaction whatsoever, there was no lack of fairness in not putting to Mr Lehrmann that he was reckless to Ms Higgins’ consent when he had had sexual intercourse with her,” the submissions say.

Justice Lee previously said that if Lehrmann had won the blockbuster lawsuit, he would have only been awarded $20,000.

“If it had been necessary to assess damages in favour of Mr Lehrmann, the appropriate and rational relationship between the actual harm sustained and the damages awarded would lead to total damages of $20,000,” Justice Lee said.

However Ms Burrows argued that figure should be increased if Justice Lee’s findings are overturned.

Ms Wilkinson’s lawyers argue the finding was open to Justice Lee.