Wilkinson points to Ten’s lawyers: ‘I trusted the advice’
Journalist Lisa Wilkinson says she did not see the legal advice about what details to include in an interview on The Project with alleged rape victim Brittany Higgins, but she trusted that Network Ten’s lawyers had cleared it.
In the fourth week of a defamation trial brought against Ten and Wilkinson by former Liberal staffer Bruce Lehrmann, Wilkinson was in a Federal Court witness box on Friday defending the program she hosted on February 15, 2021.
Ms Higgins alleged she was raped in the Parliament House office of the defence industry minister Linda Reynolds in March 2019. Mr Lehrmann was not named in the interview and has always strongly denied the allegations.
Lisa Wilkinson and her barrister Sue Chrysanthou, SC, outside the Federal Court in Sydney on Friday. Louise Kennerley
Mr Lehrmann’s barrister, Matthew Richardson, SC, asked Wilkinson about why the interview included key details that would identify his client, including that he moved with Linda Reynolds between two portfolios, that he left in 2019, and that he was working in Sydney at the time of the broadcast.
“Were you aware of any other male staffers who worked for Reynolds who fit those facts?” Mr Richardson asked.
“I didn’t know the staffing make-up … my understanding was that appropriate checks were being done and advice being sought within Channel 10 as to whether those facts were appropriate to being included in the broadcast. I left those decisions to those more qualified than me,” Wilkinson replied.
“The advice I believed had been taken prior to broadcast meant that having those details in there was appropriate. I trusted the advice.”
She later said she did not personally receive the legal advice, but was aware that Ten’s legal department was “across the story”.
The court heard The Project emailed Mr Lehrmann a set of questions at 2.30pm on Friday, February 12, 2021, with a deadline of 10am on Monday morning.
“I want to submit to you that 2.30 on a Friday is a timeline that would present obvious difficulties,” Mr Richardson asked.
Wilkinson hit back: “Lawyers like politicians and journalists all work seven days a week … I believed 80 hours before broadcast to be a very fair and reasonable time for Mr Lehrmann to respond to us.”
Mr Richardson said the show was already put together and would not have accommodated Mr Lehrmann, even if he had responded. “There was no way in a matter of hours on the 15th of February The Project would have had time to recut what had laboriously been put together since the interview on the 2nd [of February],” he asked.
Wilkinson replied: “The Project team is an experienced team of senior professional journalists and producers who work to very tight deadlines all the time. Knowing them as I did, I strongly believe they would have very possibly dropped one of the segments prior to the 7pm segment in order to facilitate Mr Lehrmann.
“If he wanted to come into the studio, I was actually preparing questions that afternoon on the possibility Mr Lehrmann would agree to an interview,” she said.
Ten is relying on two defences: truth and qualified privilege. The truth defence requires the broadcaster to demonstrate that, on the balance of probabilities, the allegations made in the show were at least substantially true. It has prompted some to describe the trial as a “de-facto rape trial”. Qualified privilege means Ten must show it acted reasonably and published a matter of public interest.
The hearing, before Justice Michael Lee, continues.
Introducing your Newsfeed
Follow the topics, people and companies that matter to you.
Find out moreRead More
Latest In Media & marketing
Fetching latest articles