Lehrmann admits fabricating texts in defamation hearing

In a Federal Court hearing this week, Bruce Lehrmann faced intense cross-examination over texts sent to his girlfriend, admitting he had fabricated claims about what his lawyer allegedly told him regarding defamation payouts.

Lehrmann is suing Channel 10, presenter Lisa Wilkinson, News Corp's News Life Media, and political editor Samantha Maiden over their coverage of rape allegations made by Brittany Higgins. The hearing addresses a critical procedural hurdle: whether the court should extend the 12-month limitation period for defamation claims, which Lehrmann exceeded by nearly a year when filing suit.

Higgins alleged that Lehrmann raped her in Parliament House in March 2019 while both worked as staffers under then Defence Minister Linda Reynolds. After initially reporting the matter to police in April 2019, she requested the investigation be halted. Almost two years later, in February 2021, she gave interviews to The Project and news.com.au detailing her allegation—the media coverage that now forms the basis of Lehrmann's defamation claim.

The day those interviews aired, Lehrmann spent six hours with lawyer Warwick Korn and subsequently texted his girlfriend: "If I'm named tonight, I'm up for millions in defamation." He also wrote that his lawyer had said "Channel 10 as well as the government and Department of Finance are up for a lot of money."

Under questioning by Ten's barrister Matthew Collins KC, Lehrmann was asked whether Korn had actually made such statements. "I don't believe he did say that," Lehrmann conceded. When pressed whether he had simply invented the conversation, he replied: "Yes."

His explanation to the court was that "Rome was burning"—that he felt the situation was catastrophic—and he wanted to "put on a brave face" for his "incredibly stressed and traumatised" girlfriend. Rather than relay what his lawyer had actually advised, he fabricated reassurance about lucrative damages to comfort her.

The admission strikes at the credibility central to defamation proceedings, which hinge on whether reporting was accurate and careful. A plaintiff who admits inventing facts about legal advice on the very day the alleged defamation occurred raises serious questions about the reliability of his broader account.

Justice Michael Lee must now rule whether Lehrmann's reasons for missing the deadline—his lawyer's advice to wait for criminal proceedings to conclude, the proceedings themselves, and his mental health—warrant extending the limitation period. If refused, the case will be dismissed. If granted, his defamation claim can proceed to trial.

The outcome takes on added weight given that the criminal trial against Lehrmann collapsed last year due to juror misconduct, eliminating an obstacle his legal team cited for the delay. Now a law student, Lehrmann's courtroom testimony has handed the defendants' legal team evidence to challenge his credibility from the start.