As the judge put it, having escaped the lions’ den Bruce Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat.
Today was the full catastrophe.
Mr Lehrmann launched his defamation case against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson over their interview with Brittany Higgins after his trial was abandoned with no findings against him.
Now there are findings against him.
Justice Michael Lee of the Federal Court has found that on the balance of probabilities he raped Brittany Higgins in the office of then minister Linda Reynolds after a night out drinking in 2019.
One of Mr Lehrmann’s claims was that he had gone to Parliament House to make Question Time notes on the French submarine contract, but Justice Lee wasn’t buying it.
“It is obvious there was one dominant thought running through the mind of Mr Lehrmann as he was approaching Parliament House, and it was nothing to do with French submarine contracts,” Justice Lee said in his judgement.
Defamation case saw Bruce Lehrmann cross examined for first time
Today was the end of a long and extraordinary case.
But it nearly didn’t get off the ground.
When Mr Lehrmann first lodged his defamation claim it was more than a year after the broadcast and out of time.
He had to make a special application to the Federal Court to run the case.
And that was how the world first heard Mr Lehrmann’s account, from his own mouth, and it was the first time he was cross examined.
Mr Lehrmann had not given evidence in his criminal trial, with only his police interview played.
Justice Lee ruled he could have an extension of time after hearing evidence that it was not reasonable to have expected him to lodge the defamation case earlier because he was tied up in the criminal trial.
A battle at close quarters
It was clear from the judge’s comments during the trial he was not impressed by the credibility of Mr Lehrmann or Ms Higgins.
But the case was like a battle at close quarters.
A central piece of evidence was hours of footage from the Dock where the pair were drinking before the incident.
Network Ten wanted to say that Mr Lehrmann had been plying Ms Higgins with drinks, encouraging her to get drunk.
To ensure there was no doubt about it they brought a lip reader, an interpreter from England who was able to tell the court what was being said.
The lip reader told the court that in footage of Mr Lehrmann pushing drinks towards Ms Higgins, he was saying “all hers: all hers”.
A captivating case
Looking on were tens of thousands of viewers glued to the Federal Court’s website.
And many days the court public gallery was close to capacity.
The spectators were mostly journalists and other lawyers having a sticky beak, along with a few dedicated court watchers.
Notably there were also a couple of separate groups of school girls who came to see Ms Higgins give her evidence.
Today the case moved to a much bigger court, and still managed to fill the public gallery, while more than 40,000 people watched online, showing the public interest has never waned.
Not a complete win for Network Ten
The question is what happens now.
Brittany Higgins is still processing the result.
There is no word on whether Bruce Lehrmann will appeal against the ruling.
As the court rose Lisa Wilkinson’s lawyer Sue Chrysanthou hugged her client, saying “you won”.
It wasn’t a complete win, amid the criticism of The Project program, but it wasn’t a loss either.
The court action isn’t over yet, with costs to be decided later this month.
That includes how costs for Lisa Wilkinson’s personal lawyers should be worked out after Network Ten had to concede she was entitled to separate counsel.
When Ms Wilkinson first lodged her claim for costs against Ten the total was around $700,000, but that was before the defamation hearing.
Perhaps the strangest part of the case was the sudden appearance of former Seven Network producer Taylor Auerbach with claims of drugs and sex workers for Mr Lehrmann as he was reeled in for an exclusive interview with the Spotlight program.
He also told the court Mr Lehrmann had passed on material from the criminal trial which should have remained confidential.
The claims were denied by Seven, which said it was “appalled”.
And the judge didn’t think much of it either, with no real bearing on the final result.
Since the Spotlight program however it has been clear someone handed over the confidential material to Seven.
That has the capacity to generate a contempt of court case.
Seven is not revealing its contact, and Mr Lehrmann has always denied it was him, but Justice Lee said he couldn’t find another alternative.
The ACT government says it is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is not commenting.