Just once we thought so Defamation lawsuit When Bruce Lehrmann filed a lawsuit against Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson because her February 2021 report on The Project was nearing completion, one other twist occurred.
Judge Michael Lee was expected to announce his decision on the matter, which went to trial a month last yr, on Thursday morning. That has now been delayed.
The reason? Lawyers for Network Ten were successful To persuade the federal court, it should hear recent evidence that was not presented through the trial.
This sequence not only tests the credibility of the trial witnesses, but additionally that of two of Australia's largest media organizations.
What happened in court?
The defendant's lawyers (Network Ten) received a lawsuit statutory declaration and accompanying materials from a former Seven Network producer that appeared to contradict Lehrmann's statements on the witness stand.
In any trial, whether civil or criminal, the credibility of witnesses is crucial.
Steven Saphore/AAP
If there are conflicting witness statements, a judge must at all times determine whose evidence must be preferred. Therefore, the credibility of Lehrmann's testimony is crucial to his case. To challenge this, the defendants petitioned the court to reopen the case, which they succeeded in doing successful yesterday.
As a result, Judge Lee's ruling will likely be delayed by at the very least every week.
This is a highly unusual practice. The parties are obliged to reveal who their witnesses will likely be at the beginning of a trial. Only a really confident litigant would test a judge's patience in this manner by calling a surprise witness.
In fact, the credibility of a lawyer's entire case might be jeopardized if the brand new evidence is insufficient. Somewhat thing that wasn't compelling wouldn't impress a judge.
As it happened, Judge Lee believed that the brand new evidence, if credible, could be fresh and compelling. He added he wanted “Let sunlight be the best disinfectant.”
The surprise witness, former Seven Network producer Taylor Auerbach, is anticipated to be called to the stand in the subsequent few days to be examined under oath and cross-examined. Network Ten could in fact select to not call him and easily provide his affidavits and supporting materials as evidence.
Network Ten's lawyer, Matthew Collins, will claim Lehrmann provided Auerbach with greater than 2,000 pages of “deeply personal exchanges” between Brittany Higgins and her former boyfriend. Collins will allege that Lehrmann received this exchange while defending allegations that he raped Higgins in 2019.
Whatever form it takes, Network Ten will support Auerbach's testimony, claiming it makes Lehrmann's own testimony unreliable and damages his credibility and factual representations.
The Seven Network has already done it disputed He described Auberach's account of the events as “wrong and misleading”. The cross-examination of Auerbach when he’s summoned by Lehrmann's lawyer will likely be intense.
Should Auerbach actually testify, it is probably going that Lehrmann himself will take the stand again and comment on these expected revelations.
Will this affect the result?
That may be very difficult to say. The evidence, if accepted, can have a significant impact on the credibility of the testimony of those that testified, particularly Lehrmann, and the important thing findings of fact on this case.
Lehrmann's rape trial accomplished in October 2022 when Australian Capital Territory Chief Justice Lucy McCallum found there had been jury misconduct. Lehrmann has at all times maintained his innocence and has not been convicted of against the law.
Dan Himbrechts/AAP
Collins will allege that Lehrmann violated what is thought in legal practice as “Harman firms”
This obligation (arising from a British case 40 years ago) applies to all parties in legal proceedings and insists that they not use the data collected in preparation for a trial for purposes unrelated to the trial.
Judge Lee noted yesterday that the brand new evidence was more likely to change the facts of the case and agreed with Collins that it was greater than just an issue of credibility. Like any evidence, it would proceed to influence Judge Lee's deliberations, as will another evidence that emerges and attempts to disparage it.
Try through a camera lens
The enormous pressure on all parties has been exacerbated by the media's involvement within the case at every stage dating back to 2021.
Lehrmann initiated his defamation proceedings against Network Ten and Wilkinson, knowing full well that no adversarial findings had been made against him within the criminal proceedings.
He also has the advantage in defamation law in that, although he must prove that the statements made against him and the alleged defamatory meanings (or accusations, as they’re legally called) were in reality defamatory, he doesn’t accomplish that. I don't should prove them improper.
The onus is on the defendants to successfully assert one among the defamation defenses, on this case: contextual truth. Contextual truth is a whole defense to defamation if at the very least one among the allegations is found to be substantially true and the remaining allegations don’t cause further harm to the plaintiff's popularity. Network Ten needs this recent evidence to force its case that contextual truth is established.
Added to that is the Seven Network, whose former producer's ethics and practices are actually under scrutiny. Both networks are well funded. Their credibility is at stake, as is that of the witnesses who appeared on this trial.
There is at the very least yet one more chapter to be written to this complex story.
image credit : theconversation.com