Bruce Lehrmann’s lawyer believe the former political staffer deserves ‘substantial’ damages even if a judge finds he lied about not having sex with Brittany Higgins.
His own legal team admit Mr Lehrmann’s performance as a witness was ‘undoubtedly unsatisfactory’, but they insist that does not make him a ‘compulsive liar’.
In their closing submissions to the Federal Court, released on Friday, Mr Lehrmann’s lawyers also conceded that some of his evidence ‘might appear implausible’.
But, they added, it ‘does not for that reason alone, render it untrue or fantastic or that of a fantasist’.
And the legal team told the court that even if the court found ‘intercourse probably happened in Senator Reynolds’ suite’, Mr Lehrmann should still get a large payout.
They said that even if the court found Ms Higgins was too drunk to consent but Mr Lehrmann didn’t realise that, he deserved to be awarded large damages.
‘Even findings that extensive should not lead to an award of damages which is less than substantial,’ the final submission insisted.
Lawyers for Bruce Lehrmann (pictured) believe the former political staffer deserves ‘substantial’ damages even if a judge finds he lied about not having sex with Brittany Higgins
Wilkinson’s lawyers say Brittany Higgins (pictured) was left ‘naked, drunk and alone’ without a care for her wellbeing after the alleged raped, in their final submissions to the court
Mr Lehrmann is suing Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson for defamation over the interview with Ms Higgins on The Project in February 2021, which alleged she was raped at Parliament House in March 2019.
Mr Lehrmann vigorously denies any sexual activity between the pair, and a criminal trial on a charge of rape was abandoned in October 2022 over juror misconduct.
The prosecution and retrial was later completely dropped over concerns for Ms Higgins’ mental health.
Wilkinson’s lawyers say Ms Higgins was left ‘naked, drunk and alone’ without a care for her wellbeing after the alleged rape, in their final submissions to the court.
In submissions released on Friday, lawyers for Ms Wilkinson – who ran a truth and qualified privilege defence at the defamation trial – argued the court should believe Ms Higgins’ evidence that she woke up to find Mr Lehrmann having sex with her and that his version of events were ‘inherently improbable’.
‘It makes no sense that the applicant just left Ms Higgins there at 2.30am when they arrived there together after an evening socialising,’ the submission read.
‘He rushed out … if nothing untoward had occurred, why did he not wake her up so she could leave too?’
It was noted Ms Higgins was not challenged on her evidence that she did not give consent.
‘By reason of the toxicology evidence, the court should find that Ms Higgins was incapable of consent,’ the submission read.
‘If the court accepts that Ms Higgins was unconscious when sex was initiated by Mr Lehrmann, then he plainly knew Ms Higgins was not consenting.’
Ms Higgins testified she repeatedly told him to stop, which if accepted, was further evidence of knowledge of no consent, or withdrawal, they added.
His own legal team admit Bruce Lehrmann’s performance as a witness was ‘undoubtedly unsatisfactory’, but they insist that does not make him a ‘compulsive liar’ (Pictured, Bruce Lehrmann with family friend and confidant, Lyndon Biernoff)
Mr Lehrmann is suing Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson (pictured) for defamation over the interview with Ms Higgins on The Project in February 2021
‘Leaving her there, semi lucid is indicative of his knowledge that Ms Higgins did not consent to what he had just done,’ the submission read.
The lawyers further noted recklessness, which involved a failure to consider if a person was consenting, was also a possibility. ‘If the court concludes that Mr Lehrmann was aware that Ms Higgins was intoxicated and failed to consider whether she was capable of consent, this would amount recklessness,’ the submission read.
‘Again, rushing out is consistent with this state of mind – leaving her there naked, drunk and alone without a care as to her well being or comfort.’
Mr Lehrmman’s lawyers warned against unfairly overstating problems with aspects of his evidence.
‘When it comes to matters directly relevant to the facts in issue, Mr Lehrmann was … consistent and unshaken in his evidence,’ the submission read.
Mr Lehrmann maintained that upon entering the office he turned left and did not see Ms Higgins again. He also rejected suggestions of sexual activity.
‘He said this to police, even at a stage when he had no way of knowing whether any forensic evidence, such as DNA, existed,’ the submission read.
‘He could not have known Ms Higgins had not seen a doctor. He could not have known that Ms Higgins had not retained or provided her dress to police for forensic testing.’
Lawyers argued Brittany Higgins (pictured centre) may have have been asleep naked on the couch was because she removed her dress before she lay down to avoid vomiting on it and then passed out
The lawyers argued a potential reason Ms Higgins was found asleep naked on the couch was that she removed her dress before she lay down to avoid vomiting on it and then passed out.
In a scathing assessment of Ms Higgins’ evidence, the lawyers argued she was a ‘fundamentally dishonest witness’ and the court could not believe her without independent corroborative evidence.
‘She has persisted in asserting lies even when they became untenable,’ the submission read.
‘Whenever Ms Higgins was challenged, her almost automatic response was to give unresponsive and self-serving speeches about the effects of trauma, or to go on the attack and make further allegations.
‘Her mendacity extends so far and so wide that it is submitted that nothing she asserts could be accepted as reliable in the absence of independent corroborative evidence.’
The verdict will be handed down later this year.