In federal court, Lehrmann’s legal team claims he is “arguably Australia’s most hated man,” struggling to pay security for his appeal against a defamation ruling

In a dramatic federal court hearing, Bruce Lehrmann, the man at the centre of a highly publicised rape allegation, has claimed he is left in a dire financial situation, with his lawyer suggesting he may have to resort to “OnlyFans or something silly like that” to make ends meet. The court heard that Lehrmann, who has been labelled “arguably Australia’s most hated man,” is currently unemployed and struggling to pay the $200,000 security bond demanded by Network Ten as part of his appeal process.

Lehrmann is appealing a defamation ruling by Justice Michael Lee, who found in favour of Network Ten after the broadcaster aired allegations made by Brittany Higgins that she was raped by Lehrmann at Parliament House in 2019. Lehrmann’s defamation case against Network Ten and prominent journalist Lisa Wilkinson has generated significant media attention, and Lehrmann’s lawyer, Zali Burrows, argued that the toll of the trial on his mental health has been severe.

During the proceedings, Burrows described Lehrmann’s plight, stating, “I cannot imagine a worse type of defamation than being called a rapist.” She emphasised that the public scrutiny surrounding the case has made him “unemployable,” lamenting that the bullying tactics employed by Network Ten in demanding the security bond could effectively shut down his appeal. “It’s a bit rich [Ten and Wilkinson] asking him to put up $200,000 when they are one of the contributors as to why he’s pretty much unemployable,” Burrows said.

Lehrmann’s appeal is predicated on his assertion that Justice Lee erred in concluding that Network Ten had proven its substantial truth defence. The court heard from Ten’s barrister, Dr Matt Collins KC, who firmly rejected the notion of any bullying tactics involved in the security demand, asserting that it is standard procedure for a successful litigant to seek to enforce a cost order. Collins maintained that it was not improper for Network Ten to require Lehrmann to cover at least part of the costs associated with the appeal.

The tension in the courtroom escalated as Burrows highlighted the genuine public interest in allowing Lehrmann the opportunity to appeal, arguing that imposing the security bond would risk aborting the appeal altogether. However, Collins countered, asserting that Lehrmann has already had his day in court, stating, “He was very ably represented and his honour had made findings at the end of the day.”

Sue Chrysanthou SC, representing Wilkinson, echoed Collins’ sentiments, arguing that Lehrmann should not receive another chance, especially after he voluntarily engaged in the defamation proceedings. “He came here pleading his first imputation as one of rape. He did so having escaped the criminal process,” she said, emphasising that Lehrmann’s decision to pursue this legal route should not afford him undue consideration in light of the evidence against him.

As the hearing progressed, Collins informed the court that Lehrmann had been served with a bankruptcy notice earlier this year, although he would not proceed with the bankruptcy until the court made its ruling on the appeal. Lehrmann’s financial challenges are exacerbated by the public perception that has rendered him a pariah in Australian society, with many sympathising with the burden of stigma attached to the accusations against him.

Justice Wendy Abraham, who presided over the case, has reserved her decision on Lehrmann’s appeal and the associated security bond. The case remains a focal point in Australian media, with implications not only for Lehrmann’s future but also for broader discussions surrounding accountability, media ethics, and the treatment of alleged victims in high-profile cases.

Lehrmann, who has consistently denied the rape allegations, saw his criminal trial aborted due to concerns over the mental health of Brittany Higgins, the woman who accused him. Prosecutors decided not to seek a retrial, adding further complexity to an already convoluted legal saga that continues to unfold in the public eye.

As the legal battle continues, the situation remains fraught, with Lehrmann’s future uncertain and public scrutiny relentless.