Few winners in the Lehrmann case

The Judge’s ruling in the Lehrmann case in Australia seems to have got things just right. To a degree few come out of it with credit. Major findings were:

• To remark that Mr Lehrmann was a poor witness is an exercise in understatement. As I will explain, his attachment to the truth was a tenuous one. I would not accept anything he said except where it amounted to an admission, accorded with the inherent probabilities, or was corroborated by a contemporaneous document or a witness whose evidence I accept.
• Ms Brittany Higgins, Mr Lehrmann’s accuser, was also an unsatisfactory witness who made some allegations thatmade her a heroine to one group of partisans, but when examined forensically, have undermined her general credibility to a disinterested fact-finder.
• But what does not reflect caution was standing up to her Minister and the Chief of Staff of another Minister when Ms Brown thought they were intent on protecting their own interests at the expense of allowing a young woman to make her own decision as to whether she would involve the police – even at some risk to her professional career. This showed integrity in resisting pressure she subjectively considered inappropriate and evinced a concern for the autonomy and welfare of Ms Higgins. In these circumstances, to be later vilified as an unfeeling apparatchik willing to throw up roadblocks in covering up criminal conduct at the behest of one’spolitical overlords must be worse than galling.

Basically Lehrmann lied about not having sex with Higgins. Higgins lied about Government Ministers covering it up. She was the victim of sex she was too drunk to consent too. However she tried to make it about a Government coverup, when the reality was that in fact Ministers wanted to refer it to the Police, but were stopped by doing so because of concern it would take the decision away from Higgins.

Wilkinson and Channel 10 were not found liable for defaming Lehrmann, but their conduct was seriously criticised by the Judge also.

Lehrmann comes out of this very badly. His claim that when they went back to Parliament at 3 am, it was just to work was risible. The judge commented:

Put bluntly, he was a 23-year-old male cheating on his girlfriend, having just “hooked up” with a woman he found sexually attractive. Human experience suggests what he then wanted to happen is not exactly shrouded in mystery. … 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.

If he had not denied that they had sex, then the issue of consent would have come more into play. But by lying so blatantly about the sex, he could hardly then argue that if it did happen, it was consensual.

The Judge commented:

“Having escaped the lions’ den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat.”

Lehrmann escaped a criminal conviction due to juror misconduct. To initiate defamation proceedings when he knew he was laying about the sex was indeed a very bad mistake.