Quick Read
- The High Court of Australia dismissed Bruce Lehrmann’s final appeal regarding a defamation ruling.
- The court’s decision confirms the Federal Court finding that Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins on the balance of probabilities.
- This judgment concludes a years-long legal battle that began after a 2021 broadcast on Network Ten.
CANBERRA (Azat TV) – The High Court of Australia has dismissed an application for special leave to appeal by former Liberal staffer Bruce Lehrmann, marking the exhaustion of all legal avenues to challenge a Federal Court ruling that found he raped Brittany Higgins. The decision, handed down on April 9, 2026, solidifies the civil findings that have defined a protracted and high-profile legal battle involving Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson.
Finality in the Lehrmann Defamation Case
The High Court’s refusal to hear the appeal brings a definitive end to the litigation cycle that followed a 2021 broadcast on The Project. In that program, Ms. Higgins spoke of her experiences at Parliament House in 2019 without naming her alleged attacker, though Mr. Lehrmann later claimed he was identifiable. A subsequent criminal trial in 2022 was abandoned due to juror misconduct, and prosecutors later declined to pursue a retrial, citing concerns for Ms. Higgins’s mental health. This led to the civil defamation action brought by Mr. Lehrmann against the media outlet.
In the original Federal Court judgment, Justice Michael Lee concluded that it was more likely than not that Mr. Lehrmann raped Ms. Higgins in the office of then-senator Linda Reynolds. The court found that Mr. Lehrmann was indifferent to whether consent was given. An appeal to the full bench of the Federal Court in late 2025 not only upheld these findings but expanded upon them, with judges concluding that Mr. Lehrmann had “actual knowledge” that consent was absent.
The Distinction Between Civil and Criminal Standards
The conclusion of this case highlights the significant procedural differences between civil and criminal litigation in Australia. While the criminal trial—which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt—remained inconclusive, the civil defamation trial operated on the balance of probabilities. Despite Mr. Lehrmann maintaining his innocence throughout, the High Court’s rejection of his appeal confirms that the legal findings of the Federal Court regarding the rape remain final and binding.
Following the announcement, Ms. Higgins issued a statement expressing a sense of relief, noting that the ordeal had effectively functioned as a secondary rape trial. She stated that the legal system too often re-traumatizes survivors and expressed hope that the conclusion of this matter would prompt a broader reflection on how the judiciary protects those who report sexual violence.
Impact on Victim-Survivors and Legal Precedent
The litigation has been widely scrutinized for the toll it took on the complainant. Legal experts have noted that the use of defamation proceedings by individuals accused of sexual violence can place significant pressure on victims, effectively forcing them to re-litigate traumatic events in a public forum. By dismissing the application and ordering costs against Mr. Lehrmann, the High Court has signaled the end of this chapter, providing a measure of closure for those involved in the original reporting.
The exhaustion of all legal appeals confirms that the findings of the Federal Court, which were reached on the balance of probabilities, now stand as the final judicial determination on the events of 2019, underscoring the limitations and consequences of using civil defamation law to contest allegations of serious criminal misconduct.