Best of 2024: Unpacking the extraordinary Bruce Lehrmann judgment
Dec 23, 2024
auto_awesome
Join legal affairs reporter Michaela Whitebourn as she dissects the landmark ruling by Justice Michael Lee on the Bruce Lehrmann case. She dives into the complexities of the defamation trial and explores the crucial question of consent, especially related to intoxication. Michaela discusses the judicial findings surrounding the credibility of both Lehrmann and Brittany Higgins, emphasizing the trial's implications on public perception and the emotional toll on those involved. This conversation reveals the intricate dance of law and justice in high-profile cases.
Justice Michael Lee's ruling declared that Bruce Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins, despite Lehrmann's denial and ongoing appeals against the judgment.
The podcast underscores the crucial differences between civil and criminal legal standards, particularly how this case's findings do not equate to a criminal conviction.
Deep dives
Justice Lee's Ruling on Bruce Lehrman
Justice Michael Lee found that Bruce Lehrman raped Brittany Higgins in Parliament House, marking a significant moment in a complex legal case. He described the events as an 'omni-shambles' and concluded that the evidence presented met the civil standard of proof, indicating it was more likely than not that Higgins was sexually assaulted. This judgment was based on a combination of documentary evidence, CCTV footage, and testimonies from witnesses present prior to the incident. The ruling emphasized the seriousness of the finding while clarifying that it should not be misconstrued as a criminal conviction.
Understanding Civil vs. Criminal Standards
The podcast highlights the differences between civil and criminal legal standards, particularly relevant in this case. In civil court, the benchmark is 'balance of probabilities', whereas criminal cases require proof 'beyond reasonable doubt.' Justice Lee's determination, while profound, is not equivalent to a criminal conviction, which carries different legal implications. This distinction is crucial as the public perception of Lehrman being labeled a rapist stems from the civil ruling, despite the absence of a criminal trial's associated stringent evidentiary standard.
Credibility Assessments in the Trial
Justice Lee focused on the credibility of both Brittany Higgins and Bruce Lehrman during the proceedings. He acknowledged inconsistencies in their testimonies but ultimately found Higgins' account to be credible and compelling, despite the lack of corroborating evidence. The judge criticized Lehrman's credibility, suggesting he presented a series of lies during the trial, which impacted his account of events. The assessment of Higgins’ alcohol consumption also played a critical role in determining her ability to consent, with evidence indicating that her intoxication was substantial enough to compromise her capacity to provide clear consent.
Hi there, I’m Samantha Selinger-Morris the host of The Morning Edition, the daily news podcast from The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald.
We’re bringing you the best episodes of 2024, before your Morning Edition team returns in early January.
Today we’re revisiting one of the biggest stories of the year, the defamation trial brought by a former Liberal staffer by the name of Bruce Lehrmann.
In the episode, which aired in April, Legal affairs reporter Michaela Whitebourn details Justice Michael Lee’s momentous ruling that Lehrmann raped his colleague Brittany Higgins in a minister’s office in parliament house.
Lehrmann, who denies the allegation, has since appealed the court’s decision.