Ten’s eleventh-hour shock in court over $2.4 million payout to Brittany Higgins as judge rules in blockbuster Bruce Lehrmann case
Network Ten has argued that it would be inappropriate for the judge in Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation case to make any judgment on whether Brittany Higgins lied to secure her $2.4 million taxpayer-funded payout.
Judge Michael Lee emailed the parties involved this week after receiving a submission from Network Ten stating that allegations that Ms Higgins had ‘committed fraud against the Commonwealth’ were not relevant to the case.
Lawyers for Mr. Lehrmann had previously argued that in her settlement, Ms. Higgins made 11 statements about her alleged rape, which they claimed were false or contradicted by evidence she provided in the defamation case.
According to recently released court documents, Network Ten stated that ‘it would be inappropriate for this Court to make any ruling on the characterization of Ms Higgins’ conduct as defended by Mr Lehrmann’.
‘In essence, she was prepared to tell lies, including elaborate lies, in relation to matters which she guaranteed were true and correct, with a view to inducing the Commonwealth of Australia to enter into the instrument providing for the payment of a life-changing settlement amount.”
Brittany Higgins will not be called back to testify in the defamation case against Bruce Lehrmann over whether she lied to secure a $2.4 million government payout
Network Ten argued in its comments that Ms Higgins had addressed the allegations made by Mr Lehrmann’s lawyers.
‘Ms Higgins’ position in relation to the alleged inconsistencies was, with one exception, sufficiently clear from the evidence she gave during cross-examination.’
In his email, Judge Lee said Network Ten appeared to suggest that it would be contrary to procedural fairness to decide on the charges to determine Ms Higgin’s ‘overall creditworthiness’.
He said it was unnecessary to recall Ms Higgins to provide further evidence about the inconsistencies, but also warned that nothing in his email “in any way expressed an opinion on the underlying merits of a credit application based on of the Commonwealth Act’.
Ms. Higgins received $2.445 million from the government in the settlement after one day of mediation.
The inconsistencies include Mr Lehrmann getting into Ms Higgins’ taxi without her consent on the night of the alleged rape. She testified that she had agreed to it.
It also states that he told the taxi to stop at Parliament House without getting her permission, but that she later proved that she ‘just agreed’.
Lawyers for Mr Lehrmann argued there were 11 inconsistencies between what Ms Higgins said to secure her payout and the evidence she provided in the case.
Also that he ordered her to get out of the taxi when she testified: “I don’t know why, but when he stopped, I got out too.”
And that they did not speak to each other the following Monday, although they did exchange emails and go for coffee.
The settlement agreement also stated that Ms. Higgins was barred from attending election campaign events with her then boss, Senator Linda Reynolds, but was photographed next to her.
Ms Higgins said under cross-examination when she arrived at that event that she “accidentally” sat next to Senator Reynolds because it was one of the few seats left.