Brisbane, Australia CNN —
When an Australian judge made the unprecedented decision to reopen a major libel trial brought against a media company by a rapist, he declared: “Let sunlight be the best disinfectant.”
In this way, allegations that Judge Michael Lee later described as “sneaky” entered the public sphere, and producers at a major television network conducted interviews with former government employees, sex workers, and women who used illegal drugs. It gave surprising insight into how it was allegedly secured. Golf trips and expensive meals.
The defamation case captivated Australians last year when major political parties took the stand, and expectations for Thursday’s verdict were high. But with the arrival of new witnesses, thousands tuned in to watch the reopened case, which was broadcast live on YouTube.
The incident dates back to 2019, when Brittany Higgins, a government employee, claimed she was raped by a colleague in Parliament House after a night of drinking in Canberra. The man she accused, Bruce Lehman, vehemently denies that any sexual activity took place and pleaded not guilty in court to one count of non-consensual sexual intercourse.
However, the trial was halted in 2022 due to jury misconduct. Rather than seek a new trial, prosecutors dropped the charges, saying further court action posed an “unacceptable risk” to Higgins’ health.
Rehman therefore had no way to disprove the allegations and filed a defamation suit against the media companies for their initial coverage of the incident.
The two media outlets settled the case by paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. However, Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson chose to fight this using the truth defense. In other words, the attorney was tasked with proving on the balance of probabilities that Lehmann raped Higgins.
In 2021, two years after the night in question, Higgins went public with allegations that she had been raped in Parliament House.
In an exclusive interview with Ten’s Lisa Wilkinson for ‘The Project’, Higgins revealed that in March 2019 he drank with colleagues and took an Uber with a man to Parliament House, where he sat on a minister’s sofa. He recalled allegedly raping her.
The story sent shockwaves through Australian politics and prompted an apology from then-Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who promised to investigate the culture within parliament.
Lehmann’s name is not mentioned in the story of “The Project.” However, he claimed that it contained enough information to identify him as the rape suspect. Mr. Rehman could not pursue the defamation charge while the criminal trial was ongoing, so he asked the court for an extension of time for the complaint, which is why it took so long to get to court.
Evidence in the libel trial was submitted in late 2023 and made headlines with Mr Lehmann and Mr Higgins accusing each other of lying in court about what happened.
This was the first time Lehmann had testified in court, exercising his right not to be on the stand during a criminal trial.
But it was on Seven’s Spotlight program a few months ago that the Australian public first heard his side of the story, in his own words, on camera.
“Let’s light a fire,” Lehmann said in an episode that aired in June 2023.
That interview and the months leading up to it are in court this week after former “Spotlight” producer Taylor Auerbach made shocking claims about how the production team negotiated the interview with Lehman. became the focus of new evidence.
Matthew Collins KC, a lawyer for Network Ten, said Mr Auerbach’s testimony was important as it spoke to Mr Lehmann’s credibility and could affect the amount he would be paid if he were successful in his defamation suit. He claimed that there was.
Auerbach, sitting in a dark suit and tie, took frequent sips of water as he sat in the courtroom answering questions about his role in setting up the Lehmann interview.
He said he had been appointed as Mr Rehman’s “babysitter”, which meant developing a relationship with Mr Rehman in order to persuade him to provide him with the exclusivity he was looking for. interpreted.
Mr Auerbach said that after dinner in January 2023, he went to a hotel room with Mr Lehmann, allegedly paid for by Seven, where Mr Lehmann produced a bag of cocaine.
“He took it out and started putting it on a plate, and then he started telling me about a potential story in the Spotlight and his desire to order Meryton a prostitute that night, and in an attempt to make that happen, he started a series of web I started Googling the site,”’ Auerbach told the court.
New documents filed in court included a lengthy text message that Mr. Auerbach allegedly sent to a senior producer at “Spotlight” after meeting with Mr. Lehmann’s media adviser.
Auerbach said in the message that he was offered about 200,000 Australian dollars (about $132,000) for the interview. Mr Auerbach said in the document that he had been told by advisers that Mr Lehmann was also planning interviews with Tucker Carlson and Piers Morgan after the Australian exclusive.
The former TV producer also mentioned other allegations in his affidavit, including putting 10,000 Australian dollars ($6,500) on a company credit card for Thai massages for himself and Rehman. He said he submitted his resignation the next day out of guilt, but instead of being reprimanded, he received a promotion and a raise the following week.
Seven Network said in a statement that it did not offer Mr. Auerbach a promotion or a pay increase, nor did it compensate Mr. Lehmann for “expenses allegedly used to pay for illegal drugs and prostitutes.”
“Seven has always acted appropriately.”
Before it was aired in court, the claims about money spent on massages made headlines in Australian media, with Mr Lehmann issuing a statement calling the story “false and rather bizarre”.
Mr. Auerbach countered his denials by threatening to file a defamation lawsuit. And while pursuing the case, he came into contact with Wilkinson’s attorney.
In his testimony, Mr. Auerbach also claimed that Mr. Lehmann provided evidence from the rape trial to the Seven Network, including extensive recordings of text messages and recorded voice calls.
Under an important legal convention, documents provided to a party for the purpose of a particular proceeding cannot be used for other purposes.
Mr Rehmann’s lawyer had previously denied that his client was the source of the material, raising the possibility of contempt of court.
But barrister Matthew Richardson, representing Lehmann, downplayed the value of the material, saying that most of the information was in the public domain anyway and had not been used for any purpose.
During cross-examination, Mr Richardson suggested that Mr Auerbach was a former employee who was unhappy about losing his job at Seven and subsequently his role at Sky News.
“Mr. Auerbach, do you believe that you came here today to cause as much damage as possible to your former employer and your former colleagues?” Richardson said Thursday.
“I completely disagree,” Mr. Auerbach replied.
“And we are prepared to lie in that effort,” Richardson said.
“No, sir.”
To support his cross-examination, Mr Richardson played the court a three-minute video of Mr Auerbach breaking the golf club of a former friend and colleague at Seven.
The court heard it was posted with the words: “Merry Christmas, please sue.”
Auerbach admitted he hated his former colleague and held him partly responsible for Seven’s refusal to extend his contract.
Auerbach said in his affidavit that he had discovered evidence he believed to be relevant to the case and submitted a statement to the court at Network Ten’s request.
Evidence heard over the past two days in the ongoing defamation trial between Network Ten and Lehman has been scrutinized for what it says about the state of Australia’s media industry.
“Network Ten is the defendant here, but this week it feels like Seven is on trial for its journalistic activities,” said Sacha Molitorish, a senior lecturer at the Center for Media Migration at the University of Technology Sydney.
Former journalist Mr Molitorish said checkbook journalism had its place, but the reported allegations went far beyond that and demonstrated the need for a consistent code of ethics to be followed by all Australian journalists. said.
“But you don’t need a code of ethics to know that what the seven journalists did crossed the line,” he added.
Margaret Simmons, honorary senior research fellow at the Center for the Advancement of Journalism at the University of Melbourne, said industry reviews repeatedly called for more regulation and retribution against reporters who trample on journalistic ethics.
“You know, I think this whole story has had a devastating impact on journalism in many ways,” Simmons said.
“If we want people to trust our journalism in the age of fake news, we have to do much better than what Channel Seven appears to be doing.”
Seven said in a statement that it was “appalled by the allegations made in recent days.” We do not condone the conduct described in these complaints. They do not reflect Seven’s culture. ”
During the trial, Mr Justice Lee noted that none of the producers involved in the Spotlight program were members of Australia’s main journalists’ union, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA).
MEAA has a 12-point Code of Ethics that applies only to members. After discussing the statute and its interpretation, Justice Lee stated: is that so? I feel like not shoplifting at Woolworths isn’t that complicated. ”
Judge Lee resigned on Friday to consider the evidence, but no date has yet been set for the publication of his findings.
