Judge slams 10 over “misleading” comments, Bruce Lehrmann may appeal.

Justice Michael Lee today took aim at Network 10 for its commentary following the findings of the Bruce Lehrmann v 10 / Lisa Wilkinson defamation trial.

Parties returned to the Federal Court today seeking costs.

It followed statements by 10’s lawyer Justin Quill outside the court after a short version of the verdict was read on April 15.

“There are various aspects of the conduct of Network 10 which cause me concern.”

“The various assertions of Network 10 spokesman immediately after the judgment, and without even reading the judgment,” Lee said today.

“I don’t consider my examination of the respondents’ conduct to be devoid or divorced of reality in order to involve picking apart and dissecting the respondents conduct by reference to some sort of standard of perfection.”

Justice Lee said that “anyone taking the trouble to read the judgment” would conclude that he didn’t regard this evaluative assessment as “a close-run thing”.

“Notwithstanding that Network 10 apparently thought it appropriate for a period of 48 hours following the delivery of the judgment to go around and effectively say it had been vindicated in relation to all aspects of its conduct,” he said.

“That was quite misleading. I made it perfectly plain that what occurred in this case was that the respondents fell well short of a standard of reasonableness in the credulous way they went about reporting these allegations, and I was quite clear about that.”

Network 10’s barrister Matt Collins KC also noted that Justice Lee was “very critical” of 10’s legal advice that Lisa Wilkinson’s Logies speech was “ok”.

He told Justice Lee his judgment has been taken “extremely seriously” by the network.

“I have been asked to make myself available to Network 10 to editorial and legal staff to provide training and answer questions in relation to the import of Your Honour’s judgment in respect of the Logies speech,” he said.

Network 10 doesn’t present any “future risk” to the administration of justice, Mr Collins said.

Network 10 is trying to convince the court that Lehrmann should pay indemnity costs, which goes beyond a standard costs order.

Dr Collins said the grave nature of the findings meant Lehrmann knew that he raped Brittany Higgins and should never have launched the defamation case.

There was also discussion around Lisa Wilkinson’s costs.

Lisa Wilkinson’s barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC said her client was being asked to pursue Lehrmann “to the ends of the earth” herself, before recovering her costs from Network 10.

“They actually said that my client was obliged to pursue Mr Lehrmann first, and then go to [Network 10] to seek to recover in these cost submissions,” Ms Chrysanthou said.

“[Ms Wilkinson] is entitled to get a cheque from Network 10 prior to waiting to see whether or not Mr Lehrmann receives any money or is placed into bankruptcy,” said Justice Lee.

10’s costs are estimated at around $5 million and there were questions about bankruptcy for Bruce Lehrmann.

But lawyers acting for Bruce Lehrmann indicated he may appeal his failed defamation case. Barrister David Helvadjian asked for an extension of time to sift through more than 1,000 exhibits.

Justice Michael Lee agreed to the extension until May 31.

Former Network Seven producer Taylor Auerbach’s lawyer presented an affidavit for her client about costs he hopes to be awarded after attending court and giving evidence. Justice Lee said he would likely appoint a referee to determine what reasonable costs would be.

“But I got to tell you, it’s not going to be anything like this,” he said, motioning to the affidavit.

“The whole idea that someone can spend $17,500 to comply with a subpoena to give evidence, strikes me as ill-determined….that’s just not on.”

Justice Lee has reserved his decision on costs, but has indicated Bruce Lehrmann will have to pay some amount.

“I have reached a level of satisfaction that there will be a costs order made in favour of (Network 10),” Justice Lee said.

His consideration of the issues would be “fairly prompt”.

Source: ABC, news.com.au