‘Australia’s most hated man’: five key moments from Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation appeal | Defamation law (Australia)

Bruce Lehrmann’s attraction of Justice Michael Lee’s April 2024 defamation judgement wrapped up on Thursday, someday wanting the three days which had been set down to listen to it.It was an abrupt finish to a high-profile four-year authorized battle over Community Ten’s interview with Brittany Higgins on The Mission on 15 February 2021.The justices have reserved their determination on whether or not to overturn Lee’s discovering that the previous Liberal staffer was not defamed by Lisa Wilkinson and Community 10 after they alleged Higgins was raped in Parliament Home.The abrupt ending to the trial was not the one shock which performed out on Wednesday and Thursday in a Sydney courtroom.Regardless of the nation’s two most completed defamation barristers, Dr Matt Collins KC and Sue Chrysanthou SC, showing for the respondents, all the eye was on Lehrmann’s lawyer Zali Burrows.She is a well known legal defence lawyer however has no expertise in defamation legislation and has not been admitted to the bar. So she appeared to wrestle at occasions to current advanced authorized arguments earlier than the total bench of the federal courtroom, justices Michael Wigney, Craig Colvin and Wendy Abraham.“I’m simply going to attempt to do the very best I can,” Burrows mentioned after apologising for her consumer’s failure to retain a silk.Regardless of briefing Man Reynolds SC, and delaying the trial by six months to accomodate his schedule, Lehrmann “couldn’t afford” him and Burrows needed to press on alone.The written submissions had been lodged again in March, presumably with the help of Reynolds, however now the 4 grounds of attraction needed to be articulated in verbal submissions. The justices had been unfailingly well mannered, making allowances and taking time to clarify legislation and process.Join: AU Breaking Information emailThe uneven match between the events produced some extraordinary courtroom scenes, all broadcast on the federal courtroom’s YouTube channel.Listed below are 5 key moments.‘Astonishing submission’Arguing that Lehrmann was denied procedural equity and pure justice as a result of Lee got here up with “his personal model” of how the alleged rape occurred, Burrows confronted a sceptical bench.“I don’t perceive the logic of this submission,” Colvin mentioned.“It is advisable to clarify why it’s a completely different case.“It’s all very effectively to say these items out loud, however it’s essential clarify why it is a completely different case.”Burrows claimed Ten reported a “forceful” rape whereas Lee discovered a “delicate rape”.“It was asserted towards Mr Lehrmann … that he violently raped, that it was performed in a violent nature,” she mentioned. “Whereas His Honour discovered a very completely different case as if it was, utilizing the phrase, a delicate rape.”Colvin: “I’m unsure he discovered a non-violent rape, and I’m unsure that’s an idea I perceive.”Burrows and Lehrmann exterior courtroom throughout a wet week in Sydney. {Photograph}: Steve Markham/AAPMuch of the time over the 2 days was taken up with this argument, which was dismissed by Ten’s silk Collins as “misconceived” and “a distraction, in our respectful submission”.Collins mentioned it was an “astonishing submission” that Lehrmann’s proof may need been completely different if he had been given the prospect to answer questions on a “non-violent rape”.Wigney requested how Lehrmann would have answered questions in a different way when he had constantly maintained no sexual activity came about.She repeated that Lehmann didn’t get a possibility to reply in a different way.Lehrmann because the ‘sufferer’One factor Burrows was good at was presenting Lehrmann as a sufferer. She requested the courtroom to considerably improve his damages ought to he win on attraction as a result of he has been vilified in conventional and social media.“He’s just about turn into the nationwide joke … Australia’s most hated man,” Burrows mentioned.She bemoaned the truth that when he left courtroom “nobody at the back of the courtroom or any of the reporters downstairs are going to have something good to say to him and never even ask, ‘Are you OK?’.”Colvin reduce her off: “Is that this a speech or is that this a submission?”‘I want extra time’Burrows requested the bench on a number of events to adjourn so she may have extra time to organize her personal submissions. They refused each time.Wigney mentioned Burrows had already “obtained the courtroom’s indulgence” to begin her reply to submissions a day later than scheduled, and he or she ought to begin her response.“If I can put it this fashion, nothing that has occurred this morning has impacted, or may influence, in your means to answer to these issues,” Wigney mentioned.After one other request Burrows was informed to “begin now” and reminded she had “extra time over lunch” to type out any points.She made a ultimate bid for extra time on the finish of the day, asking if she may end her submissions early and are available again on Friday.“There are additional paperwork I ready however I’m embarrassed to say they’re not right here. Can we end early and resume tomorrow morning?” she requested.Wigney replied: “I don’t suppose so, I believe we have to resume 1755868139.”‘It’s your attraction’When Burrows requested for a clarification of a query from Colvin a few problem to the underlying findings, Wigney appeared perplexed.“It appears to me to be an important and central subject in your attraction,” Wigney mentioned.“It’s your attraction. What are the … do you perceive the reference to the underlying details?”Wigney mentioned Burrows had been in possession of Ten’s written submissions “for a while, fairly clearly”, and so they checklist the underlying details “in fairly easy phrases”.“So that you’ve had loads of alternative to think about this subject,” he mentioned.No reply to note of contentionWhile Burrows did tackle the issues within the attraction correct, she had little to say about Ten and Wilkinson’s intensive challenges of Lee’s judgement.Ten mentioned Lee was mistaken to search out Lehrmann was reckless to consent for intercourse, based mostly on how intoxicated Higgins was. Wilkinson argued Lee erred when he discovered Wilkinson’s staff failed of their defence of certified privilege, often called part 30.They argued Lee ought to have discovered that “an intentional rape” had taken place, as an alternative of discovering that there was no proof Lehrmann knew that Higgins didn’t consent to the sexual exercise.Chrysanthou sought to overturn Lee’s determination on Wilkinson’s certified privilege defence, arguing her consumer acted moderately in preparation of this system.“It was at all times our case at trial that Ms Wilkinson ought to have succeeded on this defence, but additionally so ought to have Community Ten,” Chrysanthou mentioned.However after hours of submissions that detailed the place Wilkinson believed Lee had made errors, Burrows had no reply to Collins or Chrysanthou.Wigney prompted Burrows to reply earlier than he wrapped up, saying “the compelling inference is that your consumer was not merely reckless however knew that Ms Higgins was not consenting”.“Now, you haven’t addressed that in any respect. It’s detailed written submissions have been made in relation to it and, oral submissions. Is there… something you need to put to us in relation to that?”Burrows by no means took up the supply.