[
When a younger former authorities worker mentioned on nationwide tv in 2021 that she had been sexually harassed in Australia's parliament two years earlier, it shocked the nation and sparked a wave of anger on the nation's insular, male-dominated political institution. Went.
Worker Brittany Higgins accused her co-worker Bruce Lehrman of raping her whereas he was drunk and mentioned that on the time she felt stress from the federal government to not report the assault. She grew to become a number one determine on ladies's rights, finally contributing to the electoral ouster of Australia's conservative Nationwide authorities. However for years there was no authorized conclusion to the case.
On Monday, it was lastly settled – considerably peacefully.
Mr. Lehrman misplaced a civil defamation swimsuit he filed in opposition to the tv station that first aired Ms. Higgins' account, with the choose ruling that, primarily based on the out there proof, it was extra seemingly that Mr. Lehrman Had raped her.
The proceedings didn’t happen in a felony courtroom, and the offense didn’t should be confirmed past an inexpensive doubt. As a substitute, the usual of proof was the steadiness of possibilities – a authorized time period that means whether or not one thing is extra more likely to occur than not.
Nonetheless, for a lot of, it was long-awaited recognition for Ms Higgins.
“One thing resembling justice has been performed,” mentioned Sarah Maddison, a professor of political science on the College of Melbourne.
Justice Michael Lee of the Australian Federal Court docket in Sydney dominated on Monday that it was extra seemingly that Ms Higgins was intoxicated, unaware of her environment, and mendacity “like a log” whereas Mr Lehrman attacked her. Was attacked. The choose discovered that Mr Lehrman was “adamant” on having intercourse along with her, no matter whether or not she had the capability to consent.
“In his pursuit of satisfaction, he had no regard for whether or not Ms Higgins understood or agreed with what was happening,” Justice Lee mentioned in his judgment.
The choose mentioned that though he believed Ms Higgins had exaggerated the extent to which she had tried to hide the incident, her account of the assault was credible. The choose additionally mentioned that nothing Mr. Lehrman mentioned must be accepted as reality with out affirmation from different sources.
Professor Maddison mentioned the case displays the considerations of many ladies about the way in which Australia's justice system offers with sexual assault allegations, together with the cruel scrutiny of accusers.
In 2022, throughout a felony trial in regards to the case, Ms Higgins underwent intense cross-examination by protection attorneys, who recommended she didn’t bear in mind precisely what had occurred, and who had accused her of committing the crime. . She repeatedly denied this, generally defiantly and generally in tears.
That felony trial resulted in a mistrial after a juror introduced analysis on sexual assault instances into the jury room, going in opposition to the choose's directions. However prosecutors determined in opposition to searching for a retrial due to considerations about Ms Higgins' psychological well being.
Mr Lehrman then sued Community Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson, who first interviewed Ms Higgins on tv, for defamation.
Justice Lee mentioned, “Having escaped the lion's den, Mr. Lehrman made the error of taking his hat again.”
After Monday's resolution, Ms Wilkinson instructed reporters: “I really feel pleased for the ladies of Australia as we speak.” Mr. Lehrman and Ms. Higgins didn’t instantly reply to requests for remark made by way of their attorneys.
Rachael Bergin, senior lecturer in criminology at Swinburne College in Melbourne, mentioned the end result of the defamation trial was, in a means, nonetheless unsatisfactory.
Mr. Lehrman confronted few penalties, he mentioned, whereas Ms. Higgins “needed to undergo loads to get right here, and she or he didn't get a lot out of it when it comes to justice.”