Latest / The Front / Why Bruce Lehrmann says he’s not a violent rapist

Transcript

Why Bruce Lehrmann says he’s not a violent rapist · The Front

• 0:05
  Speaker 1: From the Australian. Here's what's on the front. I'm Claire Harvey.
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: It's Thursday August twenty twenty five. Too many kids with
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: autism are on the National Disability Insurance Scheme and it
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: needs a radical overhaul. That's the big news from the
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: Federal government, which says the ndis's growth must be brought
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: under control and eligibility standards need to change. Australia's peak
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: Jewish body has begged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Nettan Yahoo
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: and Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke to stop slinging insults
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: at one another, saying they're putting the safety of Jews
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: at risk. That exclusive is live now at the Australian
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: dot Com dot Au. Bruce Lemmon is back in court,
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: this time trying to overturn a finding of rape. As
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: his lawyer claims he's Australia's most hated man today The
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: Reasons Lahman says he is not a violent rapist.
• 1:11
  Speaker 2: This episode contains descriptions of sexual assault. If you need help,
• 1:16
  Speaker 2: call one eight hundred respect. Is there such a thing
• 1:21
  Speaker 2: as non violent rape? Doesn't matter if the victim is
• 1:25
  Speaker 2: bruised and battered or if she repeatedly says no. Is
• 1:29
  Speaker 2: there a real difference between an alleged rapist knowing their
• 1:32
  Speaker 2: target doesn't consent or being reckless as to whether they
• 1:36
  Speaker 2: consent or not. These are some of the big issues
• 1:41
  Speaker 2: being thrashed out before the full Bench of the Federal Court,
• 1:44
  Speaker 2: where former Liberal staffer Bruce Lhmon is appealing a judgment
• 1:48
  Speaker 2: that found he had, on the balance of probabilities, raped
• 1:51
  Speaker 2: a fellow staffer, Brittany Higgins inside Federal Parliament in twenty nineteen.
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: Laman has always denied wrongdoing.
• 2:01
  Speaker 3: He's pretty much become a national joke. He's Australia's most
• 2:05
  Speaker 3: hated man.
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: That's a voice actor reading the words of Zally Burrows,
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: the lawyer representing Bruce Lammon. She's a solicitor and she
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: started her appeal before the full Bench of the Federal
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: Court by apologizing that it was her and not a
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: senior barrister appearing before them. Burrow said Lemon couldn't afford
• 2:26
  Speaker 1: to engage his preferred silk Guy Reynolds sc just as
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: Michael Wigney, presiding alongside Justice Craig Colvin and Justice Wendy Abraham,
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: said he was sure Burrows would stand up admirably to
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: the opposing Silks, But as Burrows got started, it became
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: clear that judges were confused as to exactly what she
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: was arguing. One of Lemon's grounds of appeal is that
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: he was denied procedural fairness. The Project program on Network
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: ten aired an allegation Lehman had forcefully raped Higgins, pinning
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: her down while she repeated the word no. Justice Lee
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: found that, on the balance of probabilities, Lamon was reckless
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: as to whether the very drunk Higgins was consenting or not.
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: He found that Higgins's account of the encounter was not
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: entirely accurate, but that overall he believed she had been raped.
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: Burrows is arguing that Justice Lee couldn't find that Lehman
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: was reckless as to whether or not Higgins consented because
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: that question of recklessness wasn't properly put to Lemon. In
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: cross examination during the trial. When he was in a
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: witness box, Lehman simply denied there'd been any sex at all.
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: You'll hear a voice actor for the presiding Judge Michael
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: Wigney first, and then Justice Craig Colvin.
• 3:48
  Speaker 4: Just so I understand where this is going. The essence
• 3:50
  Speaker 4: of your argument is that his honor found that in
• 3:53
  Speaker 4: terms of your client state of mind, it was recklessness
• 3:57
  Speaker 4: as to consent as opposed to knowledge of absence of consent.
• 4:01
  Speaker 4: And you say that the case involving recklessness was not
• 4:05
  Speaker 4: part of the pleted case. Is that your argument in
• 4:08
  Speaker 4: a nutshell?
• 4:09
  Speaker 3: No, what we are saying here is the actual allegations
• 4:13
  Speaker 3: as to the sequence of events of how the rape occurred,
• 4:17
  Speaker 3: how it was pleaded as a violent rape. When mister sorry,
• 4:20
  Speaker 3: when his honor found that it was a nonviolent rape,
• 4:24
  Speaker 3: he found a completely different type. I'm not sure he
• 4:27
  Speaker 3: found a nonviolent rape, and I'm not sure that that's
• 4:29
  Speaker 3: a concept that I understand.
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: Justice Wigney kept trying to understand exactly what Burrows was saying.
• 4:38
  Speaker 4: Is your case that unless every single one of those
• 4:41
  Speaker 4: particulars was made out and the primary judge was satisfied
• 4:44
  Speaker 4: of them, that somehow the case went outside the pleadings.
• 4:49
  Speaker 3: Is that what you're saying, Yes, sir, Look, if there's
• 4:52
  Speaker 3: allegations of a very serious criminal nature being made against
• 4:56
  Speaker 3: my client, he's entitled to know exactly the full particular
• 5:00
  Speaker 3: the allegations. If it's an indictment, it's.
• 5:02
  Speaker 4: But that's all there. There's pages of particulars. The primary
• 5:06
  Speaker 4: judge wasn't satisfied that all of those particulars had been
• 5:10
  Speaker 4: made out, but nonetheless was satisfied that it was recklessness.
• 5:15
  Speaker 4: What's unfair about that?
• 5:17
  Speaker 3: Take away the recklessness as to whether she was consenting.
• 5:20
  Speaker 3: It was the manner and the way of the rape
• 5:23
  Speaker 3: was described.
• 5:24
  Speaker 4: What difference does it make?
• 5:25
  Speaker 3: He was taken surprise as too.
• 5:27
  Speaker 4: How was he taken by surprise?
• 5:29
  Speaker 3: Mister Limman didn't realize that the version of rape was
• 5:32
  Speaker 3: considered or contemplated until he was attending the judgment for delivery,
• 5:37
  Speaker 3: and he heard that version then, but throughout the trial
• 5:40
  Speaker 3: it was a totally different type of rape that was
• 5:42
  Speaker 3: put to him.
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: She gave examples of claims by ten that she said
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: Justice lead didn't accept, including that the sexual intercourse was forceful,
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: that Higgins cried out no, no, no on a loop,
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: that Higgins was pinned down on the sofa, and that
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: she was awoken by a sharp pa in the thigh.
• 6:02
  Speaker 4: It's a procedural fairness argument, is that right?
• 6:05
  Speaker 3: Yes, so that's correct.
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: The judge kept trying to get to the bottom of.
• 6:10
  Speaker 4: It, as I understand that your client's case at trial
• 6:14
  Speaker 4: was that there was no sexual intercourse whatsoever.
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: He pointed out that during the trial, when Lehman was
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: asked whether he sought Higgins's consent, his own barrister objected
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: to that question on the basis Lemon denied there'd been
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: any sex at all.
• 6:30
  Speaker 4: So what did you expect that he would have been
• 6:32
  Speaker 4: asked in those circumstances in cross examination, particularly in light
• 6:36
  Speaker 4: of that objection, If it was put.
• 6:38
  Speaker 3: To mister Limban the particular type of sexual assault and
• 6:42
  Speaker 3: the particular events of how he's found, perhaps mister Lhbman
• 6:46
  Speaker 3: may have called other witnesses, Perhaps he would have given
• 6:49
  Speaker 3: evidence to a different It's hard.
• 6:51
  Speaker 4: To His case was clear there was no sexual intercourse,
• 6:55
  Speaker 4: So how could he have been questioned about the particular
• 6:58
  Speaker 4: circumstances in which it curred. It could have been cross examined,
• 7:02
  Speaker 4: but he would have kept on saying there was no
• 7:05
  Speaker 4: sexual intercourse.
• 7:06
  Speaker 3: No, your honor, I can't make that admission concession. If
• 7:09
  Speaker 3: you put to someone allegations of a violent nature and
• 7:11
  Speaker 3: then another case where it's not so violent, you don't
• 7:14
  Speaker 3: know what the answer is going to be. In respect,
• 7:17
  Speaker 3: it comes down to it's really seriously unfair denial of natural.
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: Justice coming up what the other side says about all that.
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: Matthew Collins Casey, representing Network ten, said Borrow's submissions to
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: the court were astonishing. Colin said there was no challenge
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: to the judge's essential findings that sexual intercourse took place
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: and that Britney Higgins did not consent.
• 8:00
  Speaker 5: End of the day, this was a defamation case, not
• 8:03
  Speaker 5: a rape case. Mims Higgins was found not to have
• 8:06
  Speaker 5: consented to sexual intercourse, and it was accepted that mister
• 8:10
  Speaker 5: Lahman knew she was intoxicated. The ordinary person would consider
• 8:15
  Speaker 5: that to be a rape.
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: Collins ripped into the submission that there was a difference
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: between different types of rape depending on whether or not
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: there'd been violence or the victim had actively fought off
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: the attacker.
• 8:30
  Speaker 5: In our submission, it's obviously rooted in historical misconceptions. Both
• 8:35
  Speaker 5: involve an abhorrent violation of bodily autonomy, and both are
• 8:40
  Speaker 5: apt to cause grave trauma.
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: I mean justice, Wigney interrupted.
• 8:46
  Speaker 4: In other words, all rape is violent.
• 8:48
  Speaker 5: All rape is violent. This case involved a violent rape
• 8:53
  Speaker 5: when one puts oneself in the position of the victim,
• 8:56
  Speaker 5: which is just appalling. She is not fully aware of
• 9:00
  Speaker 5: her surroundings when the act begins. She then becomes aware
• 9:04
  Speaker 5: of the surroundings on his honour's findings, she can't get
• 9:08
  Speaker 5: the words out to scream or resist. The act continues
• 9:13
  Speaker 5: to climax, and the perpetrator then leaves without a word.
• 9:18
  Speaker 5: Those circumstances are awful, and what they show is that
• 9:23
  Speaker 5: the sting of the imputation resides in the fact of
• 9:26
  Speaker 5: the sexual intercourse without consent, not in any details associated
• 9:32
  Speaker 5: with it. And if mister Lehman's contention were to be accepted,
• 9:36
  Speaker 5: it would follow that although he raped miss Higgins in
• 9:40
  Speaker 5: appalling circumstances, he should be entitled to damages because when
• 9:45
  Speaker 5: she woke up mid rape, Miss Higgins didn't cry out no, no,
• 9:51
  Speaker 5: No on a loop.
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: Colin's slated Burrows suggestion that Laman would be entitled to
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: financial damages if the original find were overturned.
• 10:02
  Speaker 5: In our submission, a man who rapes a woman he
• 10:06
  Speaker 5: knows to be seriously intoxicated, who is not fully aware
• 10:10
  Speaker 5: of her surroundings at the time of the commencement of
• 10:13
  Speaker 5: the rape, who continues raping her when she becomes aware
• 10:17
  Speaker 5: of his surroundings, and that he is on top of
• 10:20
  Speaker 5: her and inside her, and who then leaves her in
• 10:24
  Speaker 5: the office of a Minister for the Crown in a
• 10:27
  Speaker 5: state of undress that is not a man with any
• 10:31
  Speaker 5: reputation in respect of sexual morality that would warrant compensation.
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: The fallout from this story caused a serious rift between
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: Network ten and its then biggest star, Lisa Wilkinson, who
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: presented the Bombshell interview where Higgins made her allegation of rape.
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: Wilkinson is represented by Sue Chrysantheusc. She said this question
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: of recklessness wasn't important to the original audience in this
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: day and a to an audience of the project in
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: February twenty twenty one, there is no difference in substance.
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: The court has read a letter that indicated Higgins and
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: her lawyers refused to cooperate at all with Wilkinson's defense
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: to Bruce Lammon's defamation claim because they didn't want to
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: work with Sue Chrisanthu. So in the original trial, Higgins
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: gave evidence for Ten, but not for Wilkinson, even though
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: they were all supposedly on the same side. Chris andthew
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: told the full bench on Wednesday, when Matt Collins was
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: cross examining Bruce Lahman, he was bound to stick to
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: the facts as Higgins had outlined them. That is, it
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: was a forceful rape. We at no point in the
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: trial bought into the full narrative given by Miss Higgins.
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: The appeal hearing continues next week. There'll be a judgment
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: in another matter that has spun off from Brittney Higgins's allegations,
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: the defamation claim brought by her ven boss, former Coalition
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: minister Linda Reynolds. Subscribers to The Australian we'll find out
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: that result first. Join us at the Australian dot com
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: dot au