Appeal judges have struggled to understand the case made by Bruce Lehrmann’s lawyer, who claims the federal court judgment that her client raped Brittany Higgins in Parliament House in 2019 found the action was a ‘soft rape’ but was characterised in a Network Ten broadcast as a ‘violent’ assault.
Sydney criminal solicitor Zali Burrows, representing Lehrmann after he could not afford his chosen barrister, argued that her client was not given an opportunity to be questioned about the type of rape found by Justice Michael Lee. However, Justice Michael Wigney said he did not accept Burrows’ summary, stating: ‘I don’t think His Honour said anything about a violent rape or a soft rape.’
Burrows repeatedly asked the court to adjourn early to give her more time to prepare, but the justices refused. Wigney told her she had ‘plenty of opportunity to consider this issue’ and that she should start her submissions immediately. Despite her requests for an early finish, the court required her to continue.
Wigney also noted that Burrows had already been granted indulgence to begin her reply a day later than scheduled. When she asked to adjourn for the day due to missing documents, Wigney declined, insisting she resume.
Lehrmann is appealing Lee’s April 2024 judgment, which found he was not defamed by Lisa Wilkinson and Network Ten when The Project broadcast an interview with Brittany Higgins. Lehrmann’s written submissions argue that the decision not to name him in the broadcast was a ‘crafted strategy’ to increase ratings, not a sign of reasonableness as claimed by Wilkinson.
