Lawyers’ Picnic Ends With Big Chungus Paying Millions More To Be Branded A Rapist For Life

ERROL PARKER | Editor-at-large | Contact

The long-running legal saga involving former political staffer Bruce Lehrmann reached another conclusion in Sydney today when the Full Bench of the Federal Court dismissed his appeal against last year's defamation ruling.

The judges found not only that Lehrmann raped his colleague Brittany Higgins on the balance of probabilities, but that he knew she did not consent, a finding that went further than the original judgment.

The decision has left the chungus facing millions and millions in legal costs owed to Channel Ten and Lisa Wilkinson, despite his lawyer informing the court that he personally has no available funds to pay them.

Lawyers representing both sides once again filled the courtroom, continuing a four year period in which the only consistent beneficiaries have been the nation's top defamation silks and the newsrooms that have followed every movement of the case detail.

For everything Brittany Higgins and her family have been put through since 2019, there is no amount of money or courtroom argument that can remove the Court's finding about Lehrmann. While the legal costs continue to climb on all sides, the judgment itself remains fixed, leaving Higgins with a result that cannot be unwound by any appeal or settlement.

Nonetheless, today's hearing marked yet another chapter in a legal matter that has generated an unprecedented level of media attention.

Breakfast television producers, dishevelled newspaper reporters, amateur podcast hosts and assorted gawkers once again gathered outside the court to collect reaction from paper-carting solicitors to wig-wearing Senior Counsel. Many have been covering the case since the initial criminal proceedings in Canberra, the collapse of the jury trial, the initial defamation action, the cost hearings and now the latest appeal.

Inside the court, barristers for Lehrmann argued that the original judge had erred in finding Ten and Wilkinson had discharged the burden of proof in relation to the rape. The court did not agree. The appeal judges rejected each ground, noting that Lehrmann was very well aware that his colleague was extremely drunk, passive and silent and that he would have known she was not consenting.

Lehrmann’s solicitor later told reporters that her client was overwhelmed by the decision and that she held concerns for his mental health. She said he maintained his innocence and would seek advice on a possible application to the High Court, ensuring that the matter may continue for some time provided leave be granted.

With further legal steps still available, observers say the only real certainty is that the nation's barristers, solicitors and senior counsel are unlikely to go hungry yet.

After four years of hearings, transcripts and live crosses, the only clear winners in this saga remain the creatures billing-by-the-hour and the news directors grateful for another day of cheap content.

More to come, unfortunately.