Bruce Lehrmann defamation trial live updates: Channel Ten says judgment ‘a triumph for truth’ after Lehrmann’s case against network fails | Australian media

One of Channel Ten’s lawyers Justin Quill has fronted the media, saying the decision is an “unmitigated disaster for Bruce Lehrmann”.

“Bruce Lehrmann is a rapist.

Quill said he accepts the judgment, but that doesn’t mean he agrees “with everything”.

He said the implication that Lisa Wilkinson’s Logies speech could have impacted the perspective of jurors, in his opinion, did not “pass the muster”.

“In the end Channel Ten turned up here and defended at great cost this case and Lisa’s journalism, and defended The Project’s journalism.

“His honour found that Channel Ten deserved to be vindicated.”

Network Ten has issued a statement in response to the ruling hailing it as vindication for Brittany Higgins.

At its core this case was first and foremost about truth and Justice Lee has found that Network 10 prevailed in proving that Brittany Higgins’ allegations of rape were true.

This judgment is a triumph for truth.

Justice Lee’s judgment is vindication for the courageous Brittany Higgins who gave a voice to women across the nation.

Network 10 is considering Justice Lee’s 324-page judgment. It is clear however that Australia’s defamation laws remain highly restrictive.

When put to the test, it was always our obligation to inform the public of these important social and political matters notwithstanding the challenges presented by these laws and today’s judgment vindicates the telling of Brittany’s story.

Network 10 remains firmly committed to honest, fair and independent journalism; to holding those in power to account; to giving people a voice who wouldn’t otherwise have one; and to always pursuing without fear or favour, journalism that is firmly in the public interest.

Lisa Wilkinson: ‘I sincerely hope this judgment gives strength to women around the country’

Jordyn Beazley

Lisa Wilkinson has addressed the media outside the court.

Today the federal court has found that I published a true story about a rape in a federal minister’s office at Parliament House in March of 2019.

I sincerely hope this judgment gives strength to women around the country.

Wilkinson also thanked her legal team led by Sue Chrysanthou. She said her legal team’s “expertise and wise counsel has been a source of ongoing strength” over the duration of the defamation case.

Wilkinson also thanked her family, and “generous members of the public” for their support.

Throughout every step of this process I have been surrounded by the love of my wonderful family as well as incredibly supportive friends and colleagues. I can never thank them enough.

Our reporter Jordyn Beazley is at the court, where she’s just seen Bruce Lehrmann exit the building.

Justice Lee has found that Ten’s defence of truth has been successful.

He has ordered that the parties file submissions on costs by 22 April.

He found that on the balance of probabilities Lehrmann raped Higgins on the minister’s couch in Parliament House in 2019.

Lee: “In summary, I consider it more likely than not in those early hours, after a long night of conviviality and drinking and having successfully brought Ms Higgins back to a secluded place, Mr Lehrmann was hellbent on having sex with a woman he found attractive” and knew was inebriated.

“Having escaped the lion’s den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat,” Lee said.

Lee has found Higgins did not consent. He is now turning to Lehrmann’s state of mind.

Lehrmann was so indifferent to the rights of Higgins that he ignored the matter of consent.

Lehrmann was “hellbent” in pursuit of gratification of having sex with a woman he found sexually attractive.

“He did not care one way or the other whether Ms Higgins understood or agreed to what was going on.”

Lee has found that on the balance of probabilities Higgins was raped.

“Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins.”

Lee has rejected the notion that if the intercourse had been consensual they would have left together. He said it was explicable Lehrmann ran out alone because he was cheating on his girlfriend.

On the matter of consent Lee said Lehrmann knew Higgins was drunk, saw her falling over and saw her drinking.

He is not satisfied Higgins said no repeatedly, but he is considering if she consented at all.

In the end it comes down to whether Higgins was telling the truth in the witness box. Her evidence that she was not fully aware of her surroundings until she realised Lehrmann was on top of her performing a sexual act.

Lee said he is satisfied Higgins did not consent.

Lee is now saying what he has found happened inside the suite. He believes sexual intercourse did take place and that Lehrmann was on top of Higgins.

He is not satisfied that Higgins said “no” repeatedly but he believes she was passive “like a log”, and that afterwards she passed into a deep sleep.

He is not satisfied that the bruise photograph was genuine.

Lee is now going over Higgins’ evidence about the alleged rape.

“The first thing to be said about Ms Higgins’ account is it involves a grave allegation,” he says.

Lee finds Higgins’ account more believable than Lehrmann’s.

There is a “subtle tension” between Higgins’ varying accounts of the alleged rape.

Three days after the incident she said “I could not have consented. It would have been like fucking a log.”

At another time she said: “From what I recall, I was barely lucid. I don’t feel it was consensual at all.”

Lee says he considers Lehrmann’s account to be “an elaborate fancy”.

He rejects Lehrmann’s account that while inside the office he made notes on a question time brief.

Lehrmann came back to the office with “a woman he found attractive who had just been pashing in a nightclub”, Lee says.

Lee says he would expect any man to check on a young woman before leaving the office so late at night.