Bruce Lehrmann’s only prospect of making money is to join the adult content subscription service Onlyfans because he is on Centrelink, facing bankruptcy and cannot shell out $200,000 to file an appeal, his lawyer has told a court.
The fate of Lehrmann’s appeal against his devastating defamation loss to Network 10 and Lisa Wilkinson hangs in the balance.
The network has asked the Federal Court to order Lehrmann to pay a security of $200,000 to allow his appeal to be heard by the Full Federal Court.
The former Liberal staffer and now unemployed student is seeking to overturn Judge Michael Lee’s sweeping findings after he lost his high-stakes defamation battle.
Lehrmann is contesting a request from Ten that he post $200,000 bail (to secure his legal costs) before he is allowed to file his appeal.
Lehrmann’s lawyer Zali Burrows (pictured) told the court her client’s only chance of making money is to go on Onlyfans because she is on Centrelink and cannot afford $200,000 bail to file an appeal.
ONLY FANS
Lehrmann’s lawyer, Zali Burrows, told the court on Monday that Lehrmann’s only prospect of making money was to join Onlyfans.
He described his client as “possibly, probably, the most hated man in Australia”.
“I can’t imagine a worse kind of defamation than being called a rapist,” he said.
“He’s a young man, he’s got his whole life behind him. He really needs his day in court to defend this charge of being called a rapist.
Judge Lee made his findings according to the civil standard of balance of probabilities, which is below the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.
And Burrows said most of the public didn’t understand the difference.
The court was told Lehrmann was now receiving Centrelink benefits and was unable to pay a $200,000 guarantee.
“It’s a little rich to ask him to contribute $200,000 when they are one of the contributing factors to him being practically unemployed,” he said.
“The only chance I’d probably have to make money is by going on Onlyfans or something stupid like that.”
Ms Burrows told the court the request was an “intimidation tactic” because Ten “knows my client won’t be able to get $200,000”.
He added that Lehrmann was “afraid” to go to court because of the “media attack.”
BANKRUPTCY
In a landmark decision handed down in April, Lehrmann was found, all things considered, to have raped his former colleague Brittany Higgins inside Senator Linda Reynolds’ ministerial office in Parliament in March 2019.
He sued over Ms Higgins’ The Project interview in February 2021, however he suffered a crushing loss before being ordered to pay $2 million towards Ten’s legal costs.
Ms Burrows also seeks an order suspending the $2 million costs order made against Lehrmann, so that her appeal can be heard.
Matthew Collins, representing Network Ten, told the court on Monday that if Lehrmann had to pay the $2 million costs order, he would be swept into bankruptcy.
He added that Lehrmann was notified of a bankruptcy filing in July.
“Frankly, we are acting on the basis that there will never be a recovery, but that is just an assumption on our part,” Dr. Collins said.
The parties appeared in Federal Court on Monday at a hearing before Judge Wendy Abraham, who will rule on both applications at a later date.
Ms Higgins appeared as Ten’s star witness at the trial.
ABOUT THE LINE
Wilkinson’s lawyer, Sue Chrysanthou, told the court that Judge Abraham must decide whether public confidence in the justice system would be eroded if Lehrmann was prevented from pursuing his appeal because of a $200,000 security order to cover the coasts.
“He came to this court by choice,” Ms Chrysanthou said.
—He came here claiming that his first accusation was of rape.
“He did so having escaped the criminal process, having gone through it and escaped a conviction or, to be fair, an acquittal – perhaps an unsatisfactory outcome for him.”
‘Having escaped an appropriate decision in this regard. Having been deprived of being acquitted by the conduct of the Public Ministry, which is notorious.
But when he got here he decided to enter combat.
‘You crossed the line and questioned this court, knowing the likelihood that Network 10 and my client (Ms Wilkinson) would plead the truth. He made that decision.
“And that’s a factor against the argument I would make about the public interest.”
‘DEVASTATING’
Dr Collins told the court that Lehrmann should be made to pay security of $200,000 as he was unable to meet his existing obligations as he was given a $2 million costs order.
“Mr Lehrmann has no capacity to pay his existing obligations, let alone any costs he may incur on appeal,” Dr Collins said.
“And that favors us when accepting the request for guarantee of costs.”
Dr. Collins has argued that while the findings against Lehrmann were “devastating,” that does not mean there is a public interest in an appeal.
“He had his day in court, he had a very expensive trial that took place before the entire nation watched,” Dr. Collins said.
“It was very ably represented and his Honor reached conclusions at the end of the day.”
Pictured is Lisa Wilkinson with her lawyer Sue Chrysanthou.
Pictured is Ten’s lawyer, Matt Collins.
‘HOPELESS’
On Monday morning, Dr. Collins attacked Lehrmann’s appeal brief as “slightly arguable” and “desperate.”
In an amended appeal filed with the court, Lehrmann claims Judge Lee erred in upholding Ten’s justification.
“The conclusion that defensive justification was established must be at least slightly arguable,” Dr Collins told the court.
‘But he faces the usual difficulties of persuading an appeals court to overturn factual findings made by a trial judge.
“In this case… the credit of the two key protagonists was the central issue that ultimately animated the factual findings made by His Honor.”
Dr. Collins called two of Lehrmann’s four grounds of appeal “desperate.”
‘IT DOES NOT MEAN ANY LACK OF RESPECT’
Lehrmann is not in court.
Burrows told the court that Lehrmann was not present but was watching via a link on the Federal Court’s YouTube account.
“I mean no disrespect by not appearing,” Mrs Burrows told the court.
Ms Wilkinson and Ten successfully defended the claim.
SECURITY
Ten’s lawyers earlier this year filed an application asking the court to order Lehrmann to post $200,000 as collateral to cover legal costs related to the appeal.
Ten asks Lehrmann to pay the bail and, if not, for the Federal Court to permanently suspend the appeal procedure.
The $200,000 is to cover Network 10’s legal costs in the event Lehrmann is unsuccessful in his appeal.
LEGAL BILL OF $2 THOUSAND
Ms Burrows also seeks an order suspending the $2 million costs order made against Lehrmann.
In June, Lehrmann was ordered to pay Ten $2 million in legal costs following his failed defamation case.
The court had previously been told that Lehrmann could be forced into bankruptcy if he was unable to comply with the costs order, given that he is now unemployed and a student.
COMING BACK FOR HIS HAT
Lehrmann filed his appeal in May, after consistently denying having sexually assaulted his former colleague.
Initially, Lehrmann filed an appeal himself.
But Ms Burrows later filed an amended appeal claiming Judge Lee was wrong to uphold Ten’s justification.
They also question Judge Lee’s findings that if he had won he would only have been awarded $20,000 in damages.
CCTV of Lehrmann and Higgins entering parliament
Lehrmann was found to have raped Ms Higgins inside Parliament
The former Liberal staffer sued Ten and Ms Wilkinson over her interview with Ms Higgins on The Project in which the former political staffer said she was raped by a former colleague.
In a landmark ruling, Judge Lee determined in April, under the civil standard of balance of probabilities, that Lehrmann had raped Ms. Higgins, dismissing Lehrmann’s claim.
Judge Lee said it was “more likely than not” that Lehrmann was “so focused on gratification that he was indifferent to Ms Higgins’ consent and therefore went ahead with the sexual relations without caring whether she consented”.
Commenting on Lehrmann’s decision to sue after criminal proceedings against him were dropped, Judge Lee said: “Having escaped the lion’s den, Mr. Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat.”
He faced a trial in the ACT Supreme Court in 2022 after pleading not guilty to a charge of sexual intercourse without consent.
The trial was abandoned due to jury misconduct and the Director of Public Prosecutions withdrew the charges and plans for a retrial due to concerns for Ms Higgins’ welfare.