WhatsNew2Day – Latest News And Breaking Headlines
When Bruce Lehrmann “broke his silence” in one of the country’s most high-profile rape trials, he spoke of retaliation.
“Let’s light some fires,” he said in the first of two exclusive interviews with the Seven Network’s Spotlight program in June.
“Everything has to be there, visible, so that people can evaluate it as it is.”
But at the time he was facing separate, serious charges.
Bruce Lehrmann broke his silence on the Canberra rape case in two interviews with Seven Network’s Spotlight (pictured)
Lehrmann has strenuously denied the allegation or having had sexual relations with Brittany Higgins, who is seen arriving at the Federal Court of Australia to give evidence.
In early 2023, police announced that two rape charges had been laid against Lehrmann, stemming from an incident in his former hometown of Toowoomba in 2021.
Under Queensland laws that prevent the identification of people accused of prescribed sexual offences, he was given a title: “high profile man”.
Mr Lehrmann has not yet pleaded guilty to the Toowoomba charges or appeared in court since they were brought by police, although he is understood to deny the allegations.
Among the various mentions at Toowoomba Magistrates Court, a mammoth legal battle was brewing between Mr Lehrmann’s legal team and the media, which sought to identify him as the man facing these serious charges.
The situation escalated into a last-minute appeal to the Supreme Court, as Mr. Lehrmann’s lawyers tried to keep his name out of the media.
But that appeal would end with a reprimand from Supreme Court Justice Peter Applegarth, and with every journalist who named him linked to rape charges again.
In a final blow, Mr Lehrmann’s legal team could be ordered to pay the costs of the failed application.
Why can’t Mr. Lehrmann be named?
Under section 7 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 in Queensland, the media could not identify people charged with prescribed sexual offenses such as rape, attempted rape, assault with intent to commit rape and sexual assault. .
The protections would only be lifted until the person was sent to stand trial in a higher court.
The state’s Women’s Justice and Safety Task Force called for this restriction to be reviewed amid extensive consultation with survivors of sexual assault.
In early 2023, police announced that two rape charges had been laid against Lehrmann, stemming from an incident in his former hometown of Toowoomba in 2021.
It was one of 188 recommendations delivered to the Queensland government and Shannon Fentiman, the state’s then Attorney-General, earlier this year.
Until October 3, Queensland was the only state in Australia that maintained this law, along with the Northern Territory.
On that date, the state government removed these restrictions, effectively allowing the media to name people facing charges of rape and sexual assault, and the like.
Yvette D’Ath, Queensland’s current attorney-general, said the changes would keep victims’ interests “at the forefront of reforms”.
“Rape and sexual assault are some of the most under-reported crimes in Australia,” Ms D’Ath said on 13 September.
The media was preparing to name Mr Lehrmann once Queensland restrictions were lifted.
But an application to the Brisbane Supreme Court resulted in an interim non-publication order (NPO) being granted in late September.
In separate proceedings in Canberra, Lehrmann had been tried for the alleged rape of Higgins in a ministerial office in Parliament in March 2019.
Mr. Lehrmann had pleaded not guilty to a single charge of sexual intercourse without consent.
The trial was aborted due to jury misconduct and the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions refused to hold a retrial over concerns about Ms Higgins’ mental health, dropping charges against Mr Lehrmann.
Lehrmann has strenuously denied the allegation or ever having sexual relations with Higgins.
Mr Lehrmann is pictured filming episodes of Spotlight, which aired on Seven.
“He has chosen to remain silent”
By October, Lehrmann’s media appearances were already under the microscope.
It wasn’t just his Spotlight appearance that raised questions. There was also an appearance on breakfast television the following morning, along with another interview with Sky News’ Sharri Markson.
In stark contrast to those appearances, Mr Lehrmann remained silent as his Queensland matters progressed through the courts.
In fact, he never showed up on the day his legal team made the application to continue the non-publication order in Toowoomba.
Mr. Lehrmann’s attorneys requested that this order be maintained in order to protect their client from potential harm.
Lawyers representing media outlets, including News Corp Australia, objected.
Mr Lehrmann’s promise to “light some fires” came under fire during the process, after further questions were raised about his mental health in light of media comments.
Solicitor Andrew Hoare, representing Mr Lehrmann, said his client was at serious risk of self-harm if his identity became public.
Letters from Mr. Lehrmann’s treating psychologist were presented to the court as evidence.
The court was asked to consider “the possible harmful and psychological effects of the publication of his name” and how it could “significantly jeopardize” his psychological well-being.
Mr Lehrmann’s promise to “light some fires” in his Spotlight interviews was put under critical scrutiny during proceedings in a Queensland court earlier this year.
“A revived ‘media frenzy’ was said to be likely to seriously exacerbate his depressive symptoms and present ‘a real potential to increase his risk of suicide,’” Justice Applegarth’s Supreme Court decision states.
One particular line from Mr Lehrmann’s psychological report, referring to his separate defamation proceedings and media interviews, said: ‘These should not be misinterpreted as demonstrating his complete recovery, or that his mental health is not a real concern; On the contrary, these actions taken by Bruce to come forward and tell his story and take legal action have required significant effort and strength on his part, which has often cost him dearly in psychological terms, resulting in led to periods of severe depression after particular stress points. .
Robert Anderson, KC, representing the media, said Lehrmann had not gone to court to give evidence of his serious mental health.
He noted Mr Lehrmann’s public statements, across multiple media outlets, that were “inconsistent” with a man who was so ill he would be at risk of self-harm if he were named in the proceedings.
“He has voluntarily come forward in a public forum, in a manner that will inevitably expose and require him to explain… all of his circumstances,” Anderson said.
“He wants to be heard everywhere but here.”
Magistrate Clare Kelly ultimately rejected the continuation of the order, considering that Mr Lehrmann had actively exposed himself to the public in his interviews.
“She (the judge) expressed the opinion that this was ‘inconsistent with the assertion that media persecution has been relentless,’” the Supreme Court ruling states.
High profile man reveals himself
Even with the order discontinued, Mr. Lehrmann’s legal team began a last-ditch effort to keep his name anonymous.
A temporary stay of the order was granted pending a judicial review of Mr Justice Kelly’s decision on 26 October.
That day, Judge Applegarth quashed all hopes that Lehrmann would keep his identity secret, finding it unnecessary to protect his safety.
His trial noted that sworn statements from Mr. Lehrmann’s team did not address the circumstances under which he participated in the television interviews in June and August, nor his state of mind at the time.
Bruce Lehrmann during a break at the Federal Court of Australia on December 8
Judge Applegarth said the magistrate properly considered “the evidence about the nature, imminence and degree of probability of the harm identified”.
“Having evaluated the evidence, he was not convinced that an order was ‘necessary’ to protect his (Mr. Lehrmann’s) safety,” the ruling states.
‘He did not suggest that the applicant had the burden of proving that he was more likely to self-harm if a non-publication order was refused.
‘The plaintiff did not provide any evidence that his mental health was poor at the time he gave the interviews.
“(He) must have appreciated that, once the legislation began, his identity would be publicly revealed unless he filed and succeeded in the type of applications he has recently filed.”