My News Feed Saturday 1 August 2026

Lehrmann admits fabricating lawyer advice in defamation hearing

• By Editorial Team •
bruce-lehrmannbrittany-higginsdefamationfederal-courtlisa-wilkinsonparliament-house

Former political staffer Bruce Lehrmann has taken the witness stand in his Federal Court defamation case for the first time, admitting he fabricated text messages to his then-girlfriend about legal advice he received when media first aired allegations that he raped Brittany Higgins.

Lehrmann is pursuing a defamation claim against Channel 10 presenter Lisa Wilkinson and News Corp political editor Samantha Maiden, along with their respective outlets, over their 2021 reporting of Higgins' allegations. He has consistently denied the rape claim, which has never been proven in court and formed no basis for criminal conviction after a trial collapsed due to juror misconduct.

The crux of the current case is not whether the underlying allegations are true, but a legal procedural question: whether Justice Michael Lee will extend the standard 12-month time limit to sue for defamation. Lehrmann launched proceedings nearly two years after the reports aired—a substantial delay that could determine whether the case survives at all.

During cross-examination, Channel 10's barrister Matthew Collins KC confronted Lehrmann over text messages he sent to Greta Sinclair on the evening Higgins' interview aired on The Project in February 2021. Lehrmann had written to her: "If I'm named tonight, I'm up for millions in defamation." Under questioning, he conceded this statement was not based on actual legal advice—he had fabricated what his lawyer Warwick Korn allegedly told him.

Lehrmann explained he had been consuming alcohol while watching the broadcast with Korn and a friend at the lawyer's office. He said he felt compelled to reassure Sinclair by projecting confidence, describing his emotional state at the time as "Rome was burning." His girlfriend, he said, was already "incredibly stressed and traumatised," and he wanted to steady her nerves rather than reveal his own panic.

The testimony raises questions about his decision-making in those crucial hours. Lehrmann's legal team argues the two-year delay in filing suit was justified on three grounds: legal advice to wait, his ongoing criminal proceedings, and deteriorating mental health during that period.

The larger context shows why timing matters profoundly. Higgins, working alongside Lehrmann in then-Defence Minister Linda Reynolds' office, alleged he assaulted her in March 2019. She reported it to the Australian Federal Police in April 2019 but requested they halt their investigation days later. Her story remained largely unpublic until Wilkinson and Maiden published their interviews in February 2021—prompting not an immediate criminal reopening, but media coverage that sparked Lehrmann's civil action years later.

Justice Lee's decision on whether to extend the defamation claim's time limit will hinge on whether the delay was reasonable under the circumstances, and whether the case can proceed to trial at all.

Reporting compiled from townsvillebulletin.com.au, skynews.com.au.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why is the legal timing of this case so important?

Lehrmann launched his defamation suit nearly two years after the media reports aired, well beyond the standard 12-month time limit to sue for defamation. Justice Michael Lee must decide whether to extend that deadline. If he does not, the case collapses before trial.

What did Lehrmann admit about his text messages?

Lehrmann admitted that text messages he sent to his girlfriend on the night of the media interviews—claiming his lawyer had told him he was "up for millions" in defamation—were fabricated. Under cross-examination, he conceded his lawyer never made that statement; he invented it to reassure his girlfriend.

What is the status of the criminal case?

A criminal trial against Lehrmann over the alleged 2019 incident collapsed in 2022 due to juror misconduct. No criminal conviction was recorded. The current case is a civil defamation action, not a criminal prosecution.

More news