Posted by Seven asked to provide affidavit on why documents weren’t originally produced
The judge has asked Seven to provide an affidavit explaining why the documents provided to the court today were not produced originally in response to the subpoenas from Ten prior to the case beginning.
Justice Lee asked Seven’s lawyers whether they were proposing to provide an explanation for why the information was not provided originally.
A lawyer representing Seven told the court: “We weren’t proposing to provide your honour with any explanation, further searches have been undertaken over the last two days with the benefit of the information Mr Auerbach has provided in his affidavit.”
The judge pushed the lawyers, saying he had been “very punctilious in the case” regarding the subpoenas that had been issued prior to the case beginning.
Seven’s lawyer said: “We don’t want to say anything in relation to that.”
Lee ordered someone from Seven to provide an affidavit explaining why the documents had not been provided earlier.
Key events
Court adjourns while Seven subpoenas are photocopied
The court has adjourned until 10.30am while the subpoenas handed up by Seven are photocopied and the parties discuss issues around the scope of the material sought.
It is unclear whether Seven has provided more information that it originally did last year when asked by Ten if Lehrmann had given Spotlight any material from the criminal case in the ACT supreme court.
The possible supply of any material to Seven by Lehrmann is relevant to the defamation case, because Seven and Lehrmann have all denied such material passed between them.
Auerbach allegedly bullied and subjected to antisemitism when he worked at Spotlight, court hears
Counsel for Taylor Auerbach, Rebecca Giles, has told the court her client alleged he was bullied and subjected to antisemitism when he was working as a producer at Seven’s Spotlight program. He left his job after psychiatric injury, she said.
Giles said she would produce the documents about Auerbach’s claim against Seven later today.
Seven asked to provide affidavit on why documents weren’t originally produced
The judge has asked Seven to provide an affidavit explaining why the documents provided to the court today were not produced originally in response to the subpoenas from Ten prior to the case beginning.
Justice Lee asked Seven’s lawyers whether they were proposing to provide an explanation for why the information was not provided originally.
A lawyer representing Seven told the court: “We weren’t proposing to provide your honour with any explanation, further searches have been undertaken over the last two days with the benefit of the information Mr Auerbach has provided in his affidavit.”
The judge pushed the lawyers, saying he had been “very punctilious in the case” regarding the subpoenas that had been issued prior to the case beginning.
Seven’s lawyer said: “We don’t want to say anything in relation to that.”
Lee ordered someone from Seven to provide an affidavit explaining why the documents had not been provided earlier.
Trial reopens for the day
The first day of the reopened defamation case brought by Bruce Lehrmann against Network Ten before Justice Michael Lee has begun in the federal court.
First up is counsel for the Seven Network, who has handed the federal court a bundle of documents in answer to a subpoena from Network Ten in 2023.
On Tuesday Lee ordered the network to return two subpoenas it received in June and August relating to any documents they may have obtained from Lehrmann for the Spotlight program.
In its original response to the subpoena from Ten to produce documents Seven said “there are no written communications or records of communications to produce pursuant to the subpoena”.
Why has the Bruce Lehrmann defamation case reopened?
Counsel for the respondent, Network Ten, raised questions in an emergency late night hearing on Tuesday about whether parts of Bruce Lehrmann’s evidence in the federal court defamation case may have been false, arguing that “fresh evidence” needed testing.
The main two matters relate to how much Seven spent on wooing Lehrmann and what confidential material from his criminal trial, if any, Lehrmann handed over to Seven.
The allegations by Taylor Auerbach that have grabbed headlines relate to a claim that Seven paid thousands of dollars for massages, drugs, sex workers, accommodation and meals for Lehrmann while they tried to get him over the line for an exclusive interview. The allegations are yet to be tested by the court.
While not illegal, Seven has always insisted Lehrmann was not paid, it only helped with accommodation during filming and Lehrmann only declared the $104,000 in rental accommodation he was paid.
Ten alleges that Lehrmann and Seven have not been honest about the financial benefits received by the interviewee.
The possible supply of any documents to Seven is relevant to the defamation case because Seven, Lehrmann and Lehrmann’s counsel have all denied anything passed between them.
If proven, the evidence could go both to Lehrmann’s credibility and raise questions as to whether he abused the court process, which may affect the quantum of any damages he is awarded should his claim be successful.
Dr Matt Collins KC, for Ten, raised questions before Justice Lee about whether Lehrmann may have given false instructions to his solicitors and whether he may have committed “a very serious contempt by providing material subject to an implied undertaking to Seven”.
Ten alleges in its submission that Lehrmann has “in the conduct of this proceeding, engaged in an extreme abuse of process”, given evidence that was “wilfully false” and “committed a disgraceful contempt that warrants a referral for prosecution”.
Read more here:
Federal court of Australia to livestream the case on YouTube
This blog will cover major developments during the day. In the interests of open justice and due to significant public interest, the federal court is livestreaming this case.
You can watch the Bruce Lehrmann defamation trial live stream on YouTube here, starting from 9.30am.
How the Bruce Lehrmann defamation case unfolded
In 2021, the Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins made an explosive allegation, claiming she had been raped two years earlier on a minister’s couch in Parliament House.
She made the claim in an interview with news.com.au and a television interview which was aired by Channel Ten’s The Project on 15 February.
The media outlets did not name the alleged rapist, but Higgins’ colleague Bruce Lehrmann later claimed he was identifiable and sued news.com.au, Channel Ten and its presenter Lisa Wilkinson for defamation.
Lehrmann maintains his innocence, and at his criminal trial in 2022 pleaded not guilty to one charge of sexual intercourse without consent, denying that any sexual activity had occurred.
After his criminal trial was aborted in December 2022, prosecutors dropped charges against Lehrmann for the alleged rape of Higgins, saying a retrial would pose an “unacceptable risk” to her health. Lehrmann then pursued Ten and Wilkinson in the courts, resulting in a five-week defamation trial which ran until just before Christmas.
Click below to read more about how the story has played out so far.
Good morning
Welcome to live coverage of the Bruce Lehrmann defamation trial as it reopens to hear fresh evidence.
Justice Michael Lee is set to hear the new evidence today after allowing Channel Ten to present additional evidence in its defence of the defamation case brought by Lehrmann.
The evidence of a new witness – the former Seven producer Taylor Auerbach – will now be tested today, the day the judgment was originally due to be handed down.
To recap: Lehrmann is suing Lisa Wilkinson and her employer Network Ten for an interview with Higgins that was broadcast on The Project in 2021. He alleges the story, which did not name him, defamed him by suggesting he raped Higgins in 2019.
Lehrmann has always denied the rape allegation and, in a previous criminal trial, pleaded not guilty to one charge of sexual intercourse without consent. He denied that any sexual activity had occurred.
The criminal trial was aborted after it was discovered a juror had conducted their own research in relation to the case.
In December 2022 prosecutors dropped charges against Lehrmann for the alleged rape of Higgins, saying a retrial would pose an “unacceptable risk” to her health.