Lisa Wilkinson: "I sincerely hope this judgment gives strength to women around the country" Lisa Wilkinson has addressed the media outside the court. “Today the federal court has found that I published a true story about a rape in a federal ministers office at parliament house in March of 2019. “I sincerely hope this judgement gives strength to women around the country.” Wilkinson also thanked her legal team led by Sue Chrysanthou. She said her legal team’s “expertise and wise council has been a source of ongoing strength” over the duration of the defamation case. Wilkinson also thanked her family, and “generous members of the public” for their support.” “Throughout every step of this process I have been surrounded by the love of my wonderful family as well as incredibly supportive friends and colleagues, I can never thank them enough.” Lisa Wilkinson is addressing the press pack outside the federal court. Bruce Lehrmann leaves the court Our reporter Jordyn Beazley is at the court, where she’s just seen Bruce Lehrmann exit the building. After two-and-a-half hours, Justice Lee has finished reading extracts of his decision. Justice Lee: "Having escaped the lion’s den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat" Justice Lee has found that Ten’s defence of truth has been successful. He has ordered that the parties file submissions on costs by 22 April. He found that on the balance of probabilities Lehrmann raped Higgins on the minister’s couch in Parliament House in 2019. Lee: “In summary, I consider it more likely than not in those early hours, after a long night of conviviality and drinking and having successfully brought Ms Higgins back to a secluded place, Mr Lehrmann was hellbent on having sex with a woman he found attractive” and knew was inebriated. “Having escaped the lion’s den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat,” Lee said. Justice Lee: "Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins" on balance of probabilities Lee has found Higgins did not consent. He is now turning to Lehrmann’s state of mind. Lehrmann was so indifferent to the rights of Higgins that he ignored the matter of consent. Lehrmann was “hellbent” in pursuit of gratification of having sex with a woman he found sexually attractive. “He did not care one way or the other whether Ms Higgins understood or agreed to what was going on.” Lee has found that on the balance of probabilities Higgins was raped. “Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins.” Lee satisfied Higgins did not consent to sex with Lehrmann Lee has rejected the notion that if the intercourse had been consensual they would have left together. He said it was explicable Lehrmann ran out alone because he was cheating on his girlfriend. On the matter of consent Lee said Lehrmann knew Higgins was drunk, saw her falling over and saw her drinking. He is not satisfied Higgins said no repeatedly, but he is considering if she consented at all. In the end it comes down to whether Higgins was telling the truth in the witness box. Her evidence that she was not fully aware of her surroundings until she realised Lehrmann was on top of her performing a sexual act. Lee said he is satisfied Higgins did not consent. Intercourse took place between Higgins and Lehrmann but Lee is not reasonably satisfied that Higgins repeatedly said “stop” while he was on top of her. Lee is detailing the historical and legal definitions of rape. Lee said his focus is on the ordinary meaning of rape in this case, which is a civil and not a criminal trial. Sexual intercourse took place between Higgins and Lehrmann, Lee says Lee is now saying what he has found happened inside the suite. He believes sexual intercourse did take place and that Lehrmann was on top of Higgins. He is not satisfied that Higgins said “no” repeatedly but he believes she was passive “like a log”, and that afterwards she passed into a deep sleep. He is not satisfied that the bruise photograph was genuine. Lee said it was significant that she told her “loving father” that she was raped. “One wonders why a daughter would say such a thing to a clearly loving father absent a genuine belief that should have taken place,” Lee said. “For completeness it’s worth stressing these apparently candid communications with her father might be thought to have cogency because they occurred before” the interview with The Project. Higgins was ‘seriously inebriated’ on night of alleged rape, judge finds Lee is satisfied Higgins was drunk and, although we don’t have a blood alcohol reading, she was “seriously inebriated”. Additional drinking of whisky in the office was not put to Lehrmann in the witness box, but he strongly suspects it did take place. CCTV footage showed Higgins walking through security, trying to put her shoes on and later skipping to catch up. It does show she was not “paralytically drunk” but she was heavily affected, and Lehrmann was aware of her condition, Lee says. Judge outlines incontrovertible facts Lee says Higgins was happy when she heard that Lehrmann denied that any sex took place at all. Higgins had told Samantha Maiden she thought there was going to be a debate about consent. Lee said the incontrovertible facts are: Higgins and Lehrmann were alone at Parliament House; Lehrmann did not answer calls from his girlfriend, Lehrmann left the office alone, Higgins fell into a deep sleep; Higgins was checked on by a security guard and there was no answer. The judge has been quite scathing of Bruce Lehrmann throughout the reading of the judgment extracts. Lehrmann, who is in court, has barely looked up toward the judge throughout the course of the judgment, instead looking down at his bench table and very occasionally talking to the legal representative sitting next to him. ‘Subtle tension’ between Higgins’ varying account of alleged rape, judge says Lee is now going over Higgins’ evidence about the alleged rape. “The first thing to be said about Ms Higgins’ account is it involves a grave allegation,” he says. Lee finds Higgins’ account more believable than Lehrmann’s. There is a “subtle tension” between Higgins’ varying accounts of the alleged rape. Three days after the incident she said “I could not have consented. It would have been like fucking a log.” At another time she said: “From what I recall, I was barely lucid. I don’t feel it was consensual at all.” Lehrmann"s account an "elaborate fancy", Lee says Lee says he considers Lehrmann’s account to be “an elaborate fancy”. He rejects Lehrmann’s account that while inside the office he made notes on a question time brief. Lehrmann came back to the office with “a woman he found attractive who had just been pashing in a nightclub”, Lee says. Lee says he would expect any man to check on a young woman before leaving the office so late at night. Lee rejects submissions critical of Parliament House security guards who let Higgins and Lehrmann in Lehrmann told security that “we” rather than “I” have to collect documents so the guards didn’t refuse them entry. Lehrmann thought collecting his keys was not a good enough excuse to get into the office and thought he might be turned away, Lee says. Lee is assessing the evidence given by the security guards about the level of intoxication of Lehrmann and Higgins. One security guard said Higgins was drunk because she struggled to get her shoes on. Lee rejects Ten’s assertion that the two of them should have been denied access to Parliament House, noting that drunk people can compose themselves and convince the guards they are OK. He rejects the submissions critical of the security guards.