Is OnlyFans Bruce Lehrmann’s only option?

From The Australian. Here's what's on the front. I'm Claire Harvey. It's Tuesday, October fifteen. King Charles hits Australia on Friday, but there's a dispute over whether he really holds the title King of Australia. The government has agreed to pass special legislation enabling the title, but it won't happen before he arrives. Another Sydney restaurant owner has shared anti Semitic material, this time an image of an Israeli soldier in the form of a pig. Those stories alive now at the

Having escaped the lines dead, Mister Lehman made the mistake of coming back for his hat.

After a Federal Court judge makes this joke. At your expense, you'd think you may hesitate to go again. But Bruce Lahmon is back, and this time he's fighting to have the full bench of the Federal Court overturn Justice Michael Lee's finding that, on the balance of probabilities he raped Brittany Higgins. He's also seeking to delay payment of the two million dollars Justice Lee ordered him to hand over to Network Ten.

Mister Lehman is arguably probably Australia's most hated man.

These are the words spoken in a Federal court on Monday by Zally Burrows, a barrister representing Bruce Lamman. We've used a voice actor.

He's a young man, he's got his whole life behind him and he really does need his day in court to basically defend this charge of being labeled a rapist. Even though it's on a civil standard. He's forever going to be on the Internet and will be labeled a rapist and people don't know the difference between a criminal standard or civil standard.

This hearing is not the appeal. It's two applications heard before trial. The first is an application by the defendants Network ten and Lisa Wilkinson seeking security for costs. That is, they want the court to order Laman to put two hundred thousand dollars in an account. During the hearing on Monday, Matt Collins CAC, the barrister for Network ten, reduced that figure to one hundred and eighty thousand dollars, estimating the

We don't understand there to be any controversy between the parties that mister Lehman is impecunious and the effect of an order for security for costs would likely be to stultify the hearing of the appeal.

In other words, that would be the end of the case. Lahman's lawyer, Zali Burrows says that would be an unfair denial of his right to appeal.

It's a bit rich in asking him to put up two hundred thousand dollars when they are one of the contributors as to why he is pretty much unemployable. The only shot he'd probably ever be making money is by going on only fans or something silly like that.

For his part, Bruce Lemmon is telling the court the reason he is impecunious, that he is penniless is that his reputation and job prospects have been destroyed by media reporting about Brittany Higgins allegations. Remember, Lahman has a never been convicted in a criminal court. He was charged and went trial in the Act, but the trial was aborted with no verdict because of Dura misconduct. The Act's Director of Public Prosecutions declined to bring on another trial, saying

The substantive cause of mister Lehman's impecuniosity in our submission must logically arise from the fact that he was subsequently charged with rape and then named.

In other words, says Ten, we didn't name him, so we're not responsible for his lack of a job. Matt Collins told the court ten served Bruce Lemmon with a bankruptcy notice electronically on twenty fifth of July twenty twenty four and in person by a process server who tracked him down on August five. Laman's lawyer denies that. She says ten unsuccessfully attempted to serve the notice on Lahman's mother. Colin said ten doesn't have any expectation that Laman has two million dollars lying around.

I think we are frankly all proceeding on the basis that there'll never be any recovery. But that's just an assumption on our part. Only when a trustee in bankruptcy gets in and looks at mister Lehman's affairs will we have some clarityll.

Burrows, barrister for Bruce Lahman, says Tenant tried to name and shame Laman in relation to another rape charge. He is now facing a claim that he raped a woman into Woomba, which is yet to be heard. Laman has not yet entered a plea, but is likely to defend that charge.

My client is on a centerlink income and he won't be able to meet a security of costs order.

Burrows noted Laerman had won settlements of around two hundred thousand dollars from other publishers.

Now, if Channel ten were making a commercial decision, you would think that they would be wanting to offer something similar. If this was all about money. The security of costs for about two hundred thousand dollars is a bit disingenuous when basically they would make that on advertising revenue just reporting on these proceedings.

She said, two hundred thousand just was not a lot of money to Network ten.

This application for security of costs is pretty much a bullying tactic just to hard fisted and shut down this appeal because they know my client will not be able to come up with two hundred thousand dollars at all.

Burrow said Lahman's mental health had suffered from the negative publicity and that he was watching the live stream of the hearing rather than showing up in person because he was scared of what she called the media onslaught and assault outside court.

The effect of all this is that it really really has smashed my client.

Lherman is making his appeal on four grounds.

The first two are hopeless.

Colin said three and four are extraordinarily weak, but not hopeless.

Mister Lhirman has had his day in court, more than a day in court, twenty six days in court in circumstances where factual findings went against him and no novel or important questions of law arise.

Collins is also arguing that there's no public interest in the continuation of the proceedings.

He brought the proceeding. Of course, the findings are devastating to mister Lahman, but that doesn't mean that the reversal of those findings serve some broader public interest. He's had his day in court. He had a very expensive trial. It was conducted in the full glare of the entire nation. He was very ably represented, and his honor has made findings at the end of the day of the kind that civil courts make every day of the week.

Here's what Sukrasanthu, SC. Council for Lisa Wilkinson said about that.

He chose to ender the fray. He walked over the line and asked this court, knowing the likelihood that my client and Network ten would plead truth. Mister Lahman has had his day in court. His impecuniosity did not deprive him of having his day in court, and he's had it, why should he get another day in court?

Coming up the question of whether Bruce Lammon was reckless. That's after the break. One of Bruce Lammon's submissions, one of the two Matt Collins says are hopeless, is that Justice Lee made a mistake in finding that Bruce Lammon was recklessly indifferent to whether or not Brittany Higgins consented.

So I'm satisfied that it is more likely than not that mister Lehman's state of mind was such that he was so intent upon gratification to be indifferent to Miss Higgins's consent, and hence where head was sexual intercourse without caring whether she consented. He's pursuit of gratification here one way or the other, whether Miss Higgins understood or agreed to what was going on.

Lahman says this is unfair because this question of reckless indifference to Higgins's consent was never put to him in cross examination. Colin's on Monday took the court to a part of the cross examination from November twenty twenty three, using this to explain why he never directly asked Laman whether he obtained Higgins's consent. Here's that cross examination with Matt Collins questioning Bruce Lahman. We've used voice actors.

Now. Did you come into the support staff area and find Miss Higgins semi conscious or passed out? No, she wasn't in that area. Did you enter the Minister's office and find Miss Higgins on the minister's couch either semi conscious or passed out.

No.

I didn't enter the Minister's office during part of the period between one eight am and two thirty am on the twenty third of March twenty nineteen. You had sexual intercourse with miss Higgins.

I did not.

I put to you that you were aware that Miss Higgins was either passed out or semi conscious. No, Doctor Collins. I put to you, mister Luhman, that you were approaching a climax when Miss Higgins came to regaining a consciousness of her surroundings. No, Doctor Collins.

Collins noted that the judge found that Higgins was either unconscious or not fully aware of her surroundings that came to during the act of intercourse.

Did you, at any time seek miss Higgins's consent to have sexual intercourse with you. I didn't have sexual intercourse with her. Well, answer my question, did you at any time seek her consent to have sexual inter course with her?

There was an objection which was overruled and then Justice Lee intervened.

I assume your answer to the question is, at no stage did you seek to procure consent to have any sexual intercourse? Yes, because you deny the fact that sexual intercourse took place, and you deny you asked for any consent, Is that correct?

Yes?

Yes, Colin says there's no procedural unfairness because Laman was adamant they didn't have sex at all. When that trial starts, we'll take you into the courtroom with us. And of course it and all the big trials are reported live with unrivaled analysis at the Australian dot com dot Au