Bruce Lehrmann's lawyer believes the former political operative deserves “substantial” damages even if a judge rules he lied about not having sex with Brittany Higgins.
His own legal team admits that Lehrmann's performance as a witness was 'undoubtedly unsatisfactory', but they insist that this does not make him a 'compulsive liar'.
In their closing statements to the Federal Court, released on Friday, Lehrmann's lawyers also admitted that some of his evidence “may appear implausible”.
But, they added, “not that reason alone makes it false or fantastic or that of a fantasist.”
And the legal team told the court that even if the court found that “sexual intercourse likely occurred in Senator Reynolds' suite,” Mr. Lehrmann should still receive a large payout.
They said that even if the court ruled that Ms Higgins was too drunk to consent but Mr Lehrmann did not realize it, he deserved to get large damages.
“Even such extensive findings should not lead to an award of damages that is less than substantial,” the final report emphasized.
Lawyers for Bruce Lehrmann (pictured) believe the former political operative deserves 'substantial' damages even if a judge finds he lied about not having sex with Brittany Higgins
Wilkinson's lawyers say Brittany Higgins (pictured) was left 'naked, drunk and alone' with no care for her welfare after the alleged rape, in their latest submissions to the court
Mr Lehrmann is suing Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson for defamation over Ms Higgins' interview on The Project in February 2021, which alleged she was raped at Parliament House in March 2019.
Mr Lehrmann vehemently denies any sexual activity between the pair, and a criminal trial on rape charges was abandoned in October 2022 due to juror misconduct.
The prosecution and retrial were later dropped entirely due to concerns about Ms Higgins' mental health.
Wilkinson's lawyers say Ms Higgins was left 'naked, drunk and alone' with no care for her welfare after the alleged rape, in their latest submissions to the court.
In their statements released on Friday, lawyers for Ms Wilkinson – who mounted a truth and qualified defense during the defamation trial – argued that the court should believe Ms Higgins' evidence that she woke up to find Mr Lehrmann having sex with her and that his version of events were 'inherently implausible'.
“It makes no sense that the applicant left Ms Higgins there at 1.30am when they arrived there after a pleasant evening together,” the submission read.
“He ran outside… if nothing untoward had happened, why didn't he wake her up so she could leave too?”
It was noted that Ms Higgins was not challenged on her evidence that she had not given consent.
“Based on the toxicological evidence, the court should find that Ms. Higgins was incapable of consent,” the statement read.
'If the court accepts that Ms Higgins was unconscious when Mr Lehrmann initiated the sex, he clearly knew that Ms Higgins did not consent to it.'
Ms. Higgins testified that she repeatedly told him to stop, which, if accepted, was further evidence that they were aware of no consent or withdrawal, she added.
His own legal team admits that Bruce Lehrmann's performance as a witness was 'undoubtedly unsatisfactory', but they insist that this does not make him a 'compulsive liar' (pictured, Bruce Lehrmann with family friend and confidant Lyndon Biernoff)
Mr Lehrmann is suing Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson (pictured) for defamation over Ms Higgins' interview on The Project in February 2021
“Leaving her semi-lucid is indicative of his knowledge that Ms Higgins did not consent to what he had just done,” the entry read.
The lawyers further noted that recklessness, which involved not checking whether someone consented, was also a possibility. “If the court concludes that Mr. Lehrmann was aware that Ms. Higgins was intoxicated and did not consider her capacity to consent, this would amount to recklessness,” the statement said.
“Again, running away is consistent with this state of mind – leaving her there naked, drunk and alone with no concern for her well-being or comfort.”
Lehrmman's lawyers warned against unfairly exaggerating problems with certain aspects of his evidence.
“When it comes to matters directly relevant to the facts at issue, Mr. Lehrmann … was consistent and uncompromising in his evidence,” the statement said.
Mr Lehrmann claimed that when he entered the office he turned left and did not see Ms Higgins again. He also rejected suggestions of sexual activity.
“He said this to police even at a stage where he had no way of knowing whether forensic evidence, such as DNA, existed,” the submission read.
'He could not have known that Mrs Higgins had not seen a doctor. He could not have known that Ms Higgins had not kept her dress or given it to the police for forensic examination.”
Lawyers argued that Brittany Higgins (pictured center) may have slept naked on the couch because she took off her dress before lying down to avoid throwing up on it and then passed out.
The lawyers argued that a possible reason why Ms Higgins was found sleeping naked on the sofa was that she took off her dress before lying down to avoid vomiting and then passed out.
In a damning assessment of Ms Higgins' evidence, lawyers argued that she was a 'fundamentally dishonest witness' and that the court could not believe her without independent corroborating evidence.
“She has persisted in spreading lies even when they became untenable,” the entry read.
“Whenever Ms. Higgins was challenged, her almost automatic response was to make unresponsive and self-serving speeches about the effects of trauma, or to attack and make further accusations.
'Her mendacity extends so far and so widely that it is argued that nothing she claims can be accepted as reliable in the absence of independent corroborating evidence.'
The verdict will be announced later this year.
