Network 10 has hailed the dismissal of Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation appeal as a “triumph for truth” and a powerful vindication for Brittany Higgins, after the Full Court of the Federal Court upheld a ruling that found, on the balance of probabilities, that Lehrmann raped his former colleague in Parliament House in 2019.
The Full Court on Wednesday dismissed Lehrmann’s appeal against Network 10 and journalist Lisa Wilkinson, finding there had been no legal error in Justice Lee’s detailed ruling from April 2024.
“The court has found that the primary judge did not err in any of the ways alleged by Mr Lehrmann in his grounds of appeal and his submissions in support of them,” Justice Wigney told the court. “The Full Court has found that the way in which the primary judge dealt with and determined the proceedings was not procedurally unfair to Mr Lehrmann.”
In a strongly worded statement, a Network 10 spokesperson said the unanimous decision of Justices Michael Wigney, Craig Colvin and Wendy Abraham had “resoundingly endorsed” Justice Michael Lee’s original judgment.
“Justice Lee’s judgment was resoundingly endorsed by the unanimous decision of the full Federal Court,” the spokesperson said.
“The judgment remains a triumph for truth and reiterates that Network 10 prevailed in proving that Brittany Higgins’ allegations of rape were true.
“It remains a vindication for the courageous Brittany Higgins, who gave a voice to women across the nation.
“Network 10 remains firmly committed to honest, fair and independent journalism; to holding those in power to account; to giving people a voice who wouldn’t otherwise have one; and to always pursuing without fear or favour, journalism that is firmly in the public interest.”
The case began after an after-hours incident in the ministerial office, which initially led to Lehrmann’s dismissal over a security breach. Higgins first withdrew her complaint but later reopened it following a televised 2021 interview. Lehrmann was charged, but the criminal trial collapsed due to juror issues and concerns about Higgins’ well-being. He then sued Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson for defamation over the interview.
The 2023–2024 trial examined extensive evidence, revealing Lehrmann had misled authorities and media, while Higgins’ credibility was partially upheld. Justice Michael Lee described the case as entangled in political and cultural debates, ultimately dismissing the defamation claim in favour of Ten and Wilkinson and finding that, on the balance of probabilities, he did rape Higgins on that night in Parliament House. For the full rundown of the story, see our recount of the criminal and defamation trial here.
A Rocky Appeal From the Outset
Lehrmann’s appeal bid had already drawn pointed questions during the August 2025 hearing, where his sole representative, Zali Burrows, argued he had been denied procedural fairness because Justice Lee’s findings differed from how the rape allegation had been pleaded.
“The primary judge found that the rape occurred in a particular way that wasn’t put to Mr Lehrmann in defence,” Burrows told the bench. “He was taken by surprise as to the nature of the rape … it was pleaded as a violent rape, when His Honour found it was a non-violent rape.”
The judges rejected the premise outright.
“I’m not sure that that’s a concept that I understand,” Justice Colvin responded. “I don’t understand the logic of the submission.”
Justice Wigney noted Lehrmann had consistently denied that any sexual intercourse occurred. “He would have maintained that there was no violence, because there was no sexual intercourse,” Wigney said. “How could he have been questioned about the particulars?”
Network 10’s barrister, Dr Matthew Collins, described the violent vs non-violent distinction as “obviously rooted in historical misconceptions”, telling the court: “All rape is violent.”
Burrows also argued Lehrmann’s now-collapsed reputation would have warranted higher damages than the $20,000 Justice Lee indicated. “He’s probably Australia’s most hated man,” she said. “He’s pretty much become the national joke.”
Collins countered that Lehrmann’s reputation was already substantially damaged. “That is not a man with any reputation in respect of sexual morality that would warrant compensation,” he said.
Lisa Wilkinson’s barrister, Sue Chrysanthou SC, rejected claims of procedural unfairness and maintained the core issue was Higgins’ capacity to consent.
“Not only did Mr Lehrmann know she was drunk, he participated in making her more drunk,” she told the court. “A young man who knows that a woman is very drunk knows that she cannot consent.”
Chrysanthou also defended Wilkinson’s decision to believe Higgins when she first came forward with her allegation, noting the irony that Justice Lee was critical of Wilkinson’s initial belief in Higgins when she came forward with the story, when he found that her rape allegations had ‘a ring of truth’.
Today’s judgment now leaves Lehrmann with only one legal avenue: seeking special leave to appeal to the High Court – an option he is reportedly planning to take. Whether the High Court agrees to hear the case remains uncertain.
For Network 10, however, the message is unequivocal: the courts have spoken, twice for that matter, and both times have upheld the truth of Higgins’ account.
