Guy Reynolds SC to represent Bruce Lehrmann in defamation appeal 1 May 24 Sky News

Guy Reynolds SC to represent Bruce Lehrmann in defamation appeal

May 01, 2024 – 2:09PM

Sky News reported top media barrister Guy Reynolds SC has reached out to Bruce Lehrmann and his legal team, pointing out errors in his defamation judgment that could potentially be overturned on appeal.

Lehrmann, who has 28 days from the delivery of the judgment on April 15 to appeal his defamation loss. One key issue is the discrepancy between the versions of events presented by Lehrmann and his accuser, Brittany Higgins, which the judge may have overlooked in favour of a new narrative.

Former state prosecutor now criminal defence barrister Margaret Cunneen has offered her assistance on the criminal aspects of any potential appeal.

The team is considering whether to request an extension to the 28-day window to lodge an appeal.

Another article from Ramesh Thakur and published in the Spectator 4 May 2024, discusses Justice Michael Lee’s verdict on Lehrmann’s suit against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson. Lee’s judgment is praised for its thorough reasoning and conclusions, though the author raises four concerns.

https://www.spectator.com.au/author/ramesh-thakur/

Four troubling features of the Higgins judgment

Firstly, while many involved in the saga have tarnished reputations, Linda Reynolds and her chief of staff Fiona Brown are portrayed positively. The author questions the unequal weight of the verdict falling on Lehrmann alone.

Secondly, the article questions why the same standard of proof (balance of probabilities) applied to Lehrmann’s actions isn’t extended to Higgins’ conduct, suggesting she may have consented based on her behavior.

Thirdly, Lehrmann’s character is criticized, but the article argues that the evidence for his guilt is insufficient, highlighting a potential double standard in how women are perceived as victims.

Finally, the article criticizes Wilkinson and Ten for broadcasting the allegations before they were tested in court, questioning the fairness of their actions and the subsequent validation of their behavior post-verdict.

In essence, the article delves into the complexities of the case, raising questions about fairness, consent, and media responsibility.