A judgment in Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation trial against Network 10 has been delayed. What’s going on?

Channel 10’s lawyers were successful in convincing the Federal Court to allow the introduction of last-minute evidence. Steven Saphore/AAP

Invariably, where there are conflicting testimonies, a judge has to make a determination about whose evidence is to be preferred. So the credibility of Lehrmann’s testimony is vital to his case. To challenge it, the defendants applied to the court to reopen the case, and they were successful^[6] yesterday.

As a result, Justice Lee’s judgment will be delayed by at least a week.

This is a highly unusual practice. Parties are required at the commencement of any trial to disclose who their witnesses will be. Only a very confident litigant would test a judge’s patience in this way by calling a surprise witness.

Indeed, the credibility of a lawyer’s entire case may be at risk if the fresh evidence falls short. A trifling matter, one that was not compelling, would not impress any judge.

As it happened, Justice Lee was satisfied the new evidence, if credible, would be fresh and compelling. He added he wanted^[7] to “let sunlight be the best disinfectant”.

The surprise witness, former Seven Network producer Taylor Auerbach, is likely to be called to the stand during the next couple of days to be examined under oath and cross-examined. Network Ten may choose not to call him, of course, and simply tender into evidence his affidavits and accompanying materials.

Network Ten’s barrister, Matthew Collins, will allege^[8] Lehrmann provided Auerbach with more than 2,000 pages of “deeply personal exchanges” between Brittany Higgins and her former boyfriend. Collins will allege these exchanges had been received by Lehrmann while he was defending allegations he had raped Higgins in 2019.

Read more: Why was Bruce Lehrmann given the all-clear to sue media for defamation? A media law expert explains^[9]

In whatever form it appears, Auerbach’s testimony will be championed by Network Ten, as they claim it renders Lehrmann’s own testimony unreliable, and damages his credibility and his factual accounts.

The Seven Network has already denied^[10] Auberach’s account of the events, calling it “false and misleading”. The cross-examination of Auerbach, if he is called by Lehrmann’s barrister, will be fierce.

If Auerbach does give evidence, it is likely Lehrmann himself will take the stand again to give his response to these anticipated revelations.

Will this make a difference to the outcome?

It is very difficult to say. The evidence, if accepted, will weigh heavily into the credibility of the testimonies of those who have given evidence, especially that of Lehrmann, and the crucial findings of fact in the case.

Lehrmann’s criminal rape trial ended^[11] in October 2022 when Australian Capital Territory Chief Justice Lucy McCallum determined there had been juror misconduct. Lehrmann has always maintained his innocence and hasn’t been convicted of any crime.

Brittany Higgins testified as a witness during the month-long trial in late 2023. Dan Himbrechts/AAP

Collins will allege Lehrmann was in breach of what is referred to in legal practice as the “Harman undertaking^[12]”

This undertaking (arising from a British case 40 years ago) applies to all parties in legal proceedings and insists they not use information gathered in preparation for a trial for any purpose unrelated to the trial.

Justice Lee commented yesterday the fresh evidence was capable of changing the determination of facts in the case and agreed with Collins that it went further than merely a question of credibility. Like all evidentiary material, it will further inform Justice Lee’s deliberations, as will any other evidence that emerges that will attempt to disparage it.

Trials through a camera lens

The enormous pressure on all parties has been exacerbated by the media’s involvement in the case at every stage, going back to 2021.

Lehrmann launched his defamation case against Network Ten and Wilkinson safe in the knowledge that no adverse finding had been made against him in the criminal trial.

Read more: Murdoch v Crikey highlights how Australia's defamation laws protect the rich and powerful^[13]

He also has the advantage in defamation law that while the onus is on him to prove that the statements made against him, and the alleged defamatory meanings (or imputations, as they’re legally called) were, in fact, defamatory, he doesn’t have to prove that they are false.

The onus is on the defendants to successfully claim one of the defences to defamation, in this case, contextual truth^[14]. Contextual truth is a complete defence against defamation if at least one of the imputations is proven to be substantially true and the remaining imputations do no further harm to the plaintiff’s reputation. Network Ten needs this new evidence to push home its case that contextual truth has been established.

Into the mix comes the Seven Network, whose former producer’s ethics and practices are now under scrutiny. Both networks are well-funded. Their credibility, as much as the witnesses who have appeared in this trial, is also at stake.

This complex tale has at least one more chapter yet to run.

Read more https://theconversation.com/a-judgment-in-bruce-lehrmanns-defamation-trial-against-network-10-has-been-delayed-whats-going-on-227039