Bruce Lehrmann’s only prospect of making money is to go on adult content subscription service OnlyFans because he is on Centrelink, facing bankruptcy and unable to stump up $200,000 in order to launch 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 that Lehrmann pay a $200,000 security in order to be allowed to have his appeal heard by the Full Bench of the Federal Court.
The former Liberal staffer and now unemployed student is seeking to overturn Justice Michael Lee’s bruising findings after he lost his high stakes defamation battle.
Lehrmann is fighting an application by Ten that he pay a $200,000 surety – to guarantee their legal costs – before he is allowed to launch his appeal.
Lehrmann’s solicitor Zali Burrows (pictured) told the court her client’s only prospect of making money is to go on OnlyFans because he is on Centrelink and unable to pay a $200,000 surety in order to launch an appeal
ONLYFANS
Lehrmann’s solicitor Zali Burrows on Monday told the court that Lehrmann’s only prospect of making money was to go on OnlyFans.
She described her client as ‘arguably, probably, Australia’s most hated man’.
‘I cannot imagine a worse type of defamation than being called a rapist,’ she said.
‘He’s a young man, he’s got his whole life behind him. He really does need his day in court to defend this charge of being called a rapist.’
Justice Lee made his findings to the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, which is below the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.
And Ms Burrows said most of the public did not understand the difference.
The court was told that Lehrmann was now on Centrelink benefits and was unable to pay a $200,000 security.
‘It’s a bit rich to ask him to put up $200,000 when they are one of the contributors to why he is pretty much unemployable,’ she said.
‘The only shot he’d probably ever have in making money is by going on OnlyFans or something silly like that.’
Ms Burrows told the court that the application was a ‘bullying tactic’ because Ten ‘know my client will not be able to come up with $200,000’.
She added that Lehrmann was ‘scared’ to come to court because of the ‘media onslaught’.
BANKRUPTCY
In a landmark decision handed down in April, Lehrmann was found, on the balance of probabilities, to have raped ex-colleague Brittany Higgins inside the ministerial office of senator Linda Reynolds in Parliament House in March 2019.
He sued over Ms Higgins’ The Project interview in February 2021 however suffered a crushing loss before being ordered to pay $2m for Ten’s legal costs.
Ms Burrows is also seeking an order for a stay on the $2m costs order made against Lehrmann, so that his appeal can be heard.
Matthew Collins, acting for Network Ten, told the court on Monday that if Lehrmann was made to pay the $2m costs order, he would be tipped into bankruptcy.
He added that a bankruptcy notice was served on Lehrmann in July.
‘We, frankly, are proceeding on the basis that there’ll never be any recovery, but that’s just an assumption on our part,’ Dr Collins said.
The parties appeared in the Federal Court on Monday at a hearing before Justice Wendy Abraham, who will deliver her judgment on both applications at a later date.
Ms Higgins appeared as Ten’s star witness at the trial
OVER THE LINE
Ms Wilkinson’s barrister Sue Chrysanthou told the court that Justice Abraham must decide whether the public’s confidence in the justice system would be eroded if Lehrmann was prevented from launching his appeal because of a $200,000 security for costs order.
‘He came to this court by choice,’ Ms Chrysanthou said.
‘He came here pleading his first imputation as one of rape.
‘He did so having escaped the criminal process, having gone through it and escaped a conviction, or an acquittal to be fair to him – perhaps an unsatisfactory outcome for him.
‘Having escaped a proper decision on that. Having been deprived of being acquitted because of the conduct of the DPP, which is well known.
‘But having come here, he chose to enter the fray.
‘He walked over the line and asked this court, knowing the likelihood that Network 10 and my client (Ms Wilkinson) would plead truth. He made that decision.
‘And that’s a factor against the argument he would make on public interest.’
‘DEVASTATING’
Dr Collins told the court that Lehrmann should be made to pay a $200,000 security given he could not meet his existing liabilities, having been hit with a $2m costs order.
‘Mr Lehrmann has no capacity to pay his existing liabilities, let alone any costs that might be incurred in the appeal,’ Dr Collins said.
‘And that’s a matter which is in our favour of granting the application for security of costs.’
Dr Collins has argued that while the findings against Lehrmann were ‘devastating’, it doesn’t mean there’s a public interest in an appeal.
‘He’s had his day in court, he had a very expensive trial which was conducted in the full glare of the entire nation,’ Dr Collins said.
‘He was very ably represented and His Honour had made findings at the end of the day.’
Pictured, Lisa Wilkinson with her barrister Sue Chrysanthou
Pictured, Ten’s barrister Matt Collins
‘HOPELESS’
Earlier on Monday morning, Dr Collins attacked Lehrmann’s notice of appeal as ‘faintly arguable’ and ‘hopeless’.
In an amended appeal that has been lodged with the court, Lehrmann claims Justice Lee was wrong to uphold Ten’s justification defence.
‘In finding the defensive justification was established must be at least faintly arguable,’ Dr Collins told the court.
‘But it faces the usual difficulties involved in persuading an appellate court to reverse factual findings made by a trial judge.
‘In this case … the credit of the two key protagonists was the central issue which ultimately animated the findings of fact made by His Honour.’
Dr Collins described two of Lehrmann’s four grounds of appeal as ‘hopeless’.
‘DOESN’T MEAN ANY DISRESPECT’
Lehrmann is not in court.
Ms Burrows told the court that Lehrmann was not present but was watching via a link on the Federal Court’s YouTube account.
‘He doesn’t mean any disrespect by not appearing,’ Ms Burrows told the court.
Ms Wilkinson and Ten successfully defended the lawsuit
SECURITY
Ten’s lawyers earlier this year filed an application asking the court to order that Lehrmann deposit $200,000 as a security for their legal costs relating to the appeal.
Ten is asking Lehrmann to pay the surety and, if he does not, for the Federal Court to permanently stay the appeal proceedings.
The $200,000 is to secure Network 10’s legal costs in the event Lehrmann is not successful in his appeal.
$2MIL LEGAL BILL
Ms Burrows is also seeking an order for a stay on the $2m costs order made against Lehrmann.
In June, Lehrmann was ordered to pay Ten $2m for their legal costs following his failed defamation case.
The court was previously told Lehrmann could be forced into bankruptcy if he couldn’t meet the costs order, given he is now unemployed and a student.
GOING BACK FOR HIS HAT
Lehrmann lodged his appeal in May, having consistently denied sexually assaulting his former colleague.
Lehrmann initially lodged a notice of appeal himself.
But Ms Burrows later lodged an amended appeal which claimed Justice Lee was wrong to uphold Ten’s justification defence.
They also challenge Justice Lee’s findings that he would have been awarded just $20,000 in damages had he won.
CCTV of Lehrmann and Ms Higgins entering parliament
Lehrmann was found to have raped Ms Higgins inside Parliament House
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 that she was raped by a former colleague.
In a landmark ruling, Justice Lee in April found, on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities, Lehrmann had raped Ms Higgins, dismissing Lehrmann’s lawsuit.
Justice Lee said ‘it is more likely than not’ that Lehrmann was ‘so intent upon gratification to be indifferent to Ms Higgins’ consent, and hence went ahead with sexual intercourse without caring whether she consented.’
In commenting on Lehrmann’s decision to sue after criminal proceedings against him were withdrawn, Justice Lee said: ‘Having escaped the lion’s den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat.’
He faced trial in the ACT Supreme Court in 2022 after pleading not guilty to one count of sexual intercourse without consent.
The trial was abandoned due to juror misconduct and the Director of Public Prosecutions dropped the charges and plans for a retrial due to concerns for Ms Higgins’ welfare.
***
Read more at DailyMail.co.uk