UPDATE: In a stunning legal blow, the Full Court of the Federal Court has confirmed that Bruce Lehrmann was aware that Brittany Higgins did not consent to sexual intercourse, delivering a critical judgment in an ongoing defamation battle. In a decision handed down this week, justices dismissed all grounds of Lehrmann’s appeal against his earlier defamation suit loss, marking a significant moment in this high-profile case.
During the hearing, justices Michael Wigney, Craig Colvin, and Wendy Abraham upheld the previous ruling by Justice Michael Lee, which found that Lehrmann raped Higgins inside Parliament House on March 23, 2019. This latest judgment serves as a stinging reminder of the court’s stance on consent and sexual assault, resonating deeply within the Australian public.
Lehrmann, previously labeled “Australia’s most hated man,” was absent from the courtroom as the judges dismissed his appeal. His attempt to overturn the original ruling, seeking to restore his tarnished reputation after suing Network 10 and journalist Lisa Wilkinson, has now failed spectacularly. The court ordered Lehrmann to cover the legal costs for both Wilkinson and Network 10, which could total several hundred thousand dollars.
The justices emphasized that the circumstances of the case should have made it “scream loudly” to Lehrmann that Higgins was not consenting. They noted that she was “very drunk,” “passive and silent,” and showed signs of extreme drowsiness, which impaired her cognitive abilities. The court found that Lehrmann was fully aware of her intoxicated state and continued his advances regardless.
In the earlier decision, Justice Lee described Lehrmann’s testimony as an “elaborate fancy” and characterized his reasons for returning to Parliament House at 1:30 AM as a “transparent lie.” Lehrmann claimed he returned to collect his keys after drinking at a nightclub, but the court found this explanation unconvincing, emphasizing that he could have simply contacted his girlfriend to retrieve them.
The emotional toll of this case has been significant, with Higgins previously expressing her feelings of helplessness during the trial. A key moment in the proceedings came when a Department of Defence liaison officer recalled a conversation with a visibly upset Higgins, where she candidly stated, “I could not have consented. It would have been like f–king a log.”
In a powerful statement, the Full Court concluded that it was likely Lehrmann was “hell-bent” on having sex with Higgins, disregarding her lack of consent. The justices articulated that the only reasonable inference from the facts was that he was aware Higgins was not consenting but proceeded nonetheless.
This verdict reaffirms the seriousness of consent in sexual assault cases and may have lasting implications for how similar cases are viewed in Australia. Lehrmann has indicated his intention to appeal to the High Court, potentially prolonging this already contentious saga.
As this case continues to unfold, it underscores the complexities surrounding issues of consent and accountability. Public reaction has been intense, and many are now calling for a broader conversation about sexual violence and its impact on survivors.
Stay tuned for further updates as this developing story continues to capture national attention.
