Bruce Lehrmann’s lawyer repeatedly asks to delay defamation appeal, but judges refuse.
Bruce Lehrmann’s attempt to overturn a major defamation ruling has already run into turbulence, with his lawyer repeatedly asking for extra preparation time — only to be firmly told by the federal court bench to “start now.”
Sydney criminal solicitor Zali Burrows is representing Lehrmann in his appeal against Justice Michael Lee’s April 2024 judgment, which found that Lehrmann was not defamed by television presenter Lisa Wilkinson or Network 10. The case centres on The Project’s 2021 broadcast of Brittany Higgins’ allegation that she was raped in Parliament House. Justice Lee concluded the broadcast did not defame Lehrmann.
On Wednesday, the court heard that Lehrmann could not afford to retain his preferred barrister, Guy Reynolds, for the appeal. Burrows stepped in but immediately faced scrutiny from the full bench — Justices Michael Wigney, Craig Colvin and Wendy Abraham — over her repeated attempts to adjourn early to prepare her replies.
Embed from Getty ImagesBefore the lunch break on Thursday, Burrows asked three separate times if the court could finish early, saying she was not ready to reply to submissions from Wilkinson and Network 10. Justice Wigney reminded her that she had already been given an indulgence to begin her replies later than scheduled and insisted she should begin.
“Well, Ms Burrows, we’re inclined to require you to commence your reply now,” Wigney said, adding that nothing argued that morning had prevented her from doing so. When she persisted, Wigney reminded her she had “plenty of opportunity” to review submissions, which had been in her possession for some time.
Burrows then suggested an early lunch to regroup, which the judges granted, adjourning about 10 minutes ahead of schedule.
On the first day of the hearing, Burrows had also declined to outline all grounds of appeal, saying she would prefer to address them later in her reply. Wigney warned her that such a tactic was unconventional and that she would not be able to introduce new arguments at that stage.
Written submissions released by the court reveal Lehrmann’s arguments against Wilkinson’s notice of contention, which defended The Project’s reporting under qualified privilege provisions. Wilkinson argued her decision not to name Lehrmann on air demonstrated reasonableness in her journalism. Lehrmann countered that the choice not to name him was a deliberate “crafted strategy” to maximise interest and boost ratings, comparing it to a “whodunnit” narrative designed to intrigue viewers.
The appeal follows Lehrmann’s highly publicised criminal proceedings. He was charged with sexual intercourse without consent in 2021 after Higgins alleged he raped her in Parliament House. Lehrmann pleaded not guilty, denying any sexual activity occurred. His criminal trial in 2022 collapsed after juror misconduct, and prosecutors later dropped the case, citing the unacceptable risk a retrial would pose to Higgins’ health. Lehrmann has consistently maintained his innocence.
The defamation appeal is set for three days, but early exchanges show just how fraught the process will be. Judges have already expressed scepticism about aspects of Lehrmann’s case, including claims he was not given an opportunity to respond to the kind of rape Justice Lee found had occurred.
For Lehrmann, the appeal represents another bid to restore his reputation. For his lawyer, however, the federal court made clear that the time for delays is over.