The words that downed Bruce Lehrmann

It was there, while speaking to Detective Inspector Marcus Boorman and Senior Constable Emma Frizell, that he gave his “French submarine defence” for the first time.

In giving his version of what happened behind closed doors inside Senator Linda Reynolds’ office inside parliament in the morning of March 23, 2019, Lehrmann told the officers: “I got what I needed and then worked on the Question Time folders, very quickly.

“I wouldn’t do policy work at that time of night, while I’d been drinking. But while it was on my mind, I was certainly moving certain topics up the front, so then on Monday …I knew what I had to do.”

Just under three years later, that story featured prominently when Lehrmann was labelled by a Federal Court judge as a liar and a rapist as his multi-million dollar defamation battle with Network 10 and Lisa Wilkinson was thrown out.

THE FRENCH SUBMARINE THEORY

When he appeared on the witness stand in the Federal Court last year, Lehrmann said that he never had any sexual contact with Brittany Higgins that morning.

He claimed that he went back to parliament to collect his keys and while there, he had sat at his desk making notes on Question Time briefs relating to the French submarine issue.

He told the court that he wanted to make the notes while they were fresh in his mind, having spoken to people who worked in the defence industry at The Dock, the bar where he, Ms Higgins and colleagues drank on the Friday night.

During the trial, he was grilled by Ten’s barrister Dr Matt Collins SC as to why he needed to make notes early that morning when he had been drinking for several hours.

“Can you identify any information that you learned either at the Dock or 88MPH on the 22nd of March that was relevant to the work you were doing for the minister concerning question time briefs,” Dr Collins asked.

“Not now, I don’t have those folders,” Lehrmann said at the time.

In dismissing Lehrmann’s proceedings on Monday, Justice Michael Lee was scathing of Lehrmann’s claims about why he went back to Parliament.

“Commonsense suggests that it is obvious there was one dominant thought running through the mind of Mr Lehrmann as he was approaching Parliament House, and it was nothing to do with French submarine contracts,” Justice Lee said.

Justice Lee noted that there was evidence, from Liberal staffer Lauren Gain, that Lehrmann and Ms Higgins were seen kissing passionately at 80s-themed bar 88MPH before they returned to Parliament.

Lehrmann had claimed at trial that when he and Ms Higgins had entered Senator Reynolds’ office at 1.48am, he went to the left and she went to the right and never saw her again that night.

In his judgment, Justice Lee said it was “fanciful” that a “somewhat lubricated male staffer accompanied by a woman he found attractive” would come to a secluded place and “soberly proceed to note up briefs for a Question Time that was not to occur for one and a half weeks”.

Justice Lee added Lehrmann: “hitherto had demonstrated no outward signs of being a workaholic”.

“Mr Lehrmann was unable to identify any information he obtained at The Dock (or 88mph) relevant to the work he was supposedly doing for the Minister on the Question Time folders,” Justice Lee said.

In his findings - made to the civil standard of the balance of probabilities which is below the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt - Justice Lee concluded: “Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins.”

Justice Lee concluded that Lehrmann was more likely than not “hell-bent on having sex” with Ms Higgins when the pair returned to parliament.

”In his pursuit of gratification, he did not care one way or another whether Ms Higgins understood or agreed to what was going on,” Justice Lee said.

TRUTH

Network 10 and Wilkinson were successful because Justice Lee upheld their truth defence.

However their qualified privilege defence failed, after Justice Lee assessed the reasonableness of the broadcaster’s actions in putting the story to air.

Justice Lee said that the The Project team failed to ask questions of Ms Higgins about a photo of a bruise which she purported showed evidence of her injuries she suffered during the sexual assault.

It showed a bruise on her right leg when Ms Higgins had at the time claimed that Lehrmann crushed her left leg.

During the Federal Court trial she admitted she may have been mistaken and that the bruise may have been suffered when she fell over at a bar earlier that night.

Justice Lee also found that Ms Wilkinson and producer Angus Llewellyn failed to ask follow up questions when Ms Higgins claimed her phone had been “wiped” yet the photo survived.

He said that Ms Higgins allegations were “intertwined” with claims about a political cover up.

“And The Project team had strong indications of the unreliability of their main source,” Justice Lee said.

“Particularly as to how she lost material on her phone and selected material survived; her explanations were implausible and rather than this being a flashing warning light, Mr Llewellyn’s instinct was to avoid ‘unnecessary doubt’ and was not even followed up.”

“The lack of curiosity about investigating the bruise photograph is especially unreasonable given its subjective and objective importance and given it was said to viewers to be physical evidence corroborating Ms Higgins’ rape allegation.”

Justice Lee said that Mr Llewellyn and Ms Wilkinson encouraged Ms Higgins’ “obstruction narrative” during a pre-interview meeting, which also involved Ms Higgins’ partner David Sharaz, in Sydney in January 2021.

A transcript of that meeting reveals at Ms Wilkinson told Ms Higgins that she needed to think about the question “why didn’t you press charges”.

“I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but if you can enunciate the fact that this place is all about suppression of people’s natural sense of justice,” Ms Wilkinson said.

“Because you see around you the way that this place works. That will help. And that people who work there feel like they’ve reached the top of the mountain, and you don’t want to leave the top of the mountain … This is everything you’ve ever wanted, and it’s either, you play by their rules or you’re out of there.”

Justice Lee concluded: “The contemporaneous documents and the broadcast itself demonstrate the allegation of rape was the minor theme, and the allegation of cover-up was the major motif.

“The publication of accusations of corrupt conduct in putting up roadblocks and forcing a rape victim to choose between her career and justice won the Project team ... a glittering prize; but when the accusation is examined properly, it was supposition without reasonable foundation in verifiable fact.”

WHAT’S NEXT

The matter is expected to return to court in the coming weeks to decide whether Lehrmann is liable for Wilkinson and Network 10’s legal bills.

Lehrmann still has the option of appealing to the full bench of the Federal Court.

Justice Lee has asked that by Monday April 22 that all parties file submissions on the issue of legal costs.

It remains to be seen whether Lehrmann, an unemployed law student, would have the funds to cover his own legal costs.

Channel 10 could also make a third party costs order in an attempt to unmask whether Lehrmann had financial backers.

It has been estimated that the total legal costs for all sides was $10 million, with Lisa Wilkinson’s legal bill alone estimated to be more than $1 million.