Reporting on Bruce Lehrmann’s Queensland rape case was suppressed for almost three weeks, it can be revealed, in a now-abandoned bid by the former federal Liberal party staffer to keep his name out of the press.
Lehrmann’s case took a twist during a hearing on March 19 in the District Court in Brisbane, where Judge Deborah Richards made an “extraordinary” order over the press, after his legal team misinterpreted an earlier order.
This masthead can only now report the hearing, which lasted less than 15 minutes and resulted in media being unable to publish anything on Lehrmann’s entire rape case, including the date of his trial, for almost three weeks.
Lehrmann, who is expected to face trial on November 2, is accused of raping a woman after a drug-fuelled night in a Toowoomba nightclub in 2021.
He was committed to stand trial in 2024, with the Crown’s case that the complainant had not consented to sex without a condom. The woman had testified in earlier court proceedings that she told Lehrmann “stop what you are doing” and he consoled her throughout, saying “it’s OK, it’s OK”.
Lehrmann will fight the charges – although he has declined to confirm to the court whether that will be before a jury or if his legal team will make an application for a judge-alone trial, as is their right to do.
Media lawyers for Nine Newspapers, which owns this masthead, News Corp Australia, and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation spoke in the brief hearing last month, which related to previous orders/suppression orders that had been made.
Some media outlets, including this masthead, had published a brief update to Lehrmann’s case the afternoon before, detailing upcoming – and routine – court dates.
Lehrmann’s lawyer, Zali Burrows, a high-profile Sydney solicitor who often represents her client remotely in court, told Judge Richards she had interpreted a non-publication order to cover her client’s entire case.
“Ms Burrows,” Richards said. “I think you must have really wanted everything to be a non- publication order from yesterday afternoon.”
Burrows answered: “Yes, that’s how it’s been interpreted.”
Richards ultimately made the call to put a blanket non-publication order on the case until the following Wednesday.
“So, no publication of anything to do with the Lehrmann trial until there’s further discussion on Wednesday,” Richards said, advising media organisations they could make submissions on that date.
It was a move described by legal counsel for Nine Newspapers Larina Alick, who appeared on behalf of the media outlets opposing the non-publication order, as extraordinary.
She said there had been publication of Lehrmann’s case in that previous 24 hours – and indeed, for years.
“There is an element of futility in that order between now and Wednesday,” she told the court in the March hearing.
“If what’s being sought is a non-publication order over what occurred in the courtroom yesterday, that’s a very discrete and confined order that might be appropriate if that’s what’s being sought to be suppressed.
“But if the application is to suppress the entire case from this point in time forwards, that’s extraordinary, I would’ve thought.”
The judge responded: “It may well be extraordinary, I don’t know what the application is yet. But I don’t see any harm in media not reporting this between Thursday and Wednesday. It’s less than a week.”
Richards clarified that she did not believe the media had breached any order.
“I think Ms Burrows thought that it was a wider order than it in fact was,” Richards said.
Richards continued: “As I say, I don’t think it’s unreasonable at this stage for there to be no publication between now and Wednesday when the matter’s heard.”
But that period was ultimately extended when Lehrmann failed to file his application documents by March 23, and then failed to meet a second deadline of April 2.
As such, the media remained under a non-publication order until this Tuesday, April 7.
Last Thursday, just one hour before the court closed for the Easter long weekend, Lehrmann abandoned his application to keep the suppression going.
Lawyers for the media outlets asked the judge to make an order in chambers immediately to lift the suppression, but the reporting restrictions were not lifted until Tuesday afternoon.
This allowed the media to report on the case, and Lehrmann’s upcoming dates.
The suppression is not the first in Lehrmann’s case. In the early stages, when Queensland laws changed to allow accused rapists to be named before they were committed to trial, Lehrmann’s lawyers fought for suppression orders to prevent him from being outed as the “high-profile man charged with rape in Toowoomba”.
Cloe Read is the crime and court reporter at Brisbane Times.Connect via X or email.
