Wilkinson ‘Advocated for Her Views’ in Brittany Higgins Story: Judge

Barrister Sue Chrysanthou KC (left), and television host Lisa Wilkinson depart the Federal Court of Australia in Sydney on April 15, 2024. AAP Image/Bianca De Marchi

Former TV host Lisa Wilkinson and the Project producer Angus Llewellyn did not properly investigate the story told to them by Brittany Higgins, but a Federal Court judge has upheld Channel 10’s defence of truth.

The TV network was the subject of a defamation action brought by former political advisor Bruce Lehrmann.

Justice Michael Lee said Ms. Wilkinson had “regrettably” used her “not inconsiderable skills” in the witness box “to advocate for her views.”

“Ms Wilkinson took comfort in the fact she did not say in express terms that Mr Lehrmann was a rapist,”  but if she had considered the story more “as an experienced journalist and less as a champion [for Ms Higgins]” she would have realised it was “fraught with danger,” Justice Lee said.

Instead, “It is apparent that Ms. Wilkinson was eager to assist Ms. Higgins in telling her story and that Ms. Wilkinson was doing so for reasons personal to her. This was the case from soup to nuts.”

In referring to a transcript of the first meeting between the TV star and Ms. Higgin’s then-boyfriend David Sharaz, the judge said the TV host wanted to tell the “explosive political story” and consulted with the powers that be.

Further adding they would go “huge with it” in a March press release.

Wilkinson ‘Instinctively Believed’ Higgins

The judge said Ms. Wilkinson had a tendency to dismiss information that did not fit the narrative Ms. Higgins was presenting, and was willing to “double down” on the conspiracy that there was a political cover-up after the alleged rape.

“She fully believed what Ms. Higgins told her,” Justice Lee said.

“She instinctively believed Ms Higgins must be telling the truth and Senator Reynolds must be lying. Of course, she was perfectly entitled to her view, but it is not redolent of the conduct of a highly experienced journalist dealing with facts, not instincts, and ensuring any belief or commitment did not undermine fairness or independence.”

He noted that Ms. Wilkinson contradicted herself when she claimed the story as her own when she won a Logie, but later claimed she was not responsible for all the research and the fact-checking done by the program.

Justice Lee also criticised Ms. Wilkinson’s “lack of judgement” in her Logies speech, even though she'd sought legal advice from Channel 10.

“The action in giving the speech was not … a case of Ms. Wilkinson going off on a frolic and irresponsibly saying something off the top of her head. She was sufficiently prudent to seek advice.”

He said the journalist had a “lack of candour in the witness box” about getting things wrong, such as how the program portrayed Fiona Brown, former chief of staff to Senator Linda Reynolds, whose testimony he found credible.

Of Ms. Brown the judge said she had “[stood] up to her Minister and the Chief of Staff of another minister when [she] thought that they [were] intent on protecting their own interests at the expense of allowing a young woman to make her own decision as to whether she would involve the police, even at some risk to her.”

TV Network Did Not Give the Other Side Time to Respond

Channel Ten’s attempts to contact Mr. Lehrmann for comment on the story were inadequate, the judge also found.

The Project’s producer, Mr. Llewellyn sent a request for comment to Mr. Lehrmann on the Friday before the program was to be aired on Monday.

“[Mr. Llewellyn] was unable to offer any sensible explanation for why the request went out when it did ... and he considered it a super reasonable‘ amount of time,” Justice Lee said. “It was only a ’super reasonable’ period if one was not interested in obtaining information from others and testing the veracity of that information with Ms. Higgins.”

The judge said there were “several pointers in the evidence demonstrating why the conduct of Network Ten fell short of being reasonable in publishing” The Project story.

He said Ms. Wilkinson and the producers “had strong indications of the unreliability of their main source, particularly as to how she lost material on her phone and selected material survived; her explanations were implausible and rather than this being a flashing warning light, Mr. Llewellyn’s instinct was to avoid ‘unnecessary doubt’ and was not even followed up.”

He concluded that, “Mr. Llewellyn, like Ms. Wilkinson, started from the premise that what Ms. Higgins said about her allegations was true. They resolved from the start to publish the exclusive story and were content to do the minimum required to reduce unacceptable litigation risk.”

Wilkinson Stands By Story

Outside the court, Ms. Wilkinson read from a short statement and re-emphasised the importance of the story.

“I published a true story about a rape in a Federal Minister’s office at Parliament in March of 2019,” she said. “I sincerely hope this judgement gives strength to women around the country.”