Reason why Bruce Lehrmann could not be named as the high-profile Australian charged with rape until now

Bruce Lehrmann could not until now be named as the high-profile Australian accused of rape in Toowoomba for two reasons.

First, Queensland law expressly prohibited the identification of people accused of rape or prescribed sexual offenses before they stood trial.

However, this law was quashed by the state government this year and the change came into effect on October 3.

Secondly, Lehrmann then applied to the court for a non-publication order, which was recently rejected by a local court magistrate.

On Thursday afternoon, the magistrate’s decision to reject the silence order was upheld on judicial review by High Court Judge Peter Applegarth.

That followed a legal argument in which Lehrmann’s lawyer told the court his client would be in serious danger of self-harm if he were identified in public.

Daily Mail Australia can now reveal that Lehrmann has been charged with two counts of rape over an alleged incident in Toowoomba dating back to 2021.

He has not entered a plea.

In his published reasons, Judge Applegarth said the magistrate’s decision contained no errors.

“The evidence before the magistrate included evidence that the applicant’s possible naming prior to the conclusion of the proceedings had weighed heavily on him and had affected his mental health,” Judge Applegarth said in his judgment.

“This unfortunate effect on his mental health permitted, but did not compel, the conclusion that a non-publication order was necessary to protect the applicant’s safety.”

Judge Applegarth said Lehrmann had not established that the magistrate’s decision was unreasonable in a legal sense “or so unreasonable that no reasonable magistrate could have made that decision.”

It follows the Queensland government scrapping laws banning the identification of people accused of rape or prescribed sexual offenses before they stand trial.

Those laws expired on October 3, 2023.

But the high-profile man’s lawyers successfully sought an injunction to stop the media from mentioning him by name until now.

In a decision published on September 29, Queensland Supreme Court Justice Peter Applegarth AM said the man planned to apply for a suppression order under the new laws “as soon as practicable”.

“The applicant seeks an interim injunction from this Court to maintain the status quo until his application for an interim injunction in the Magistrates Court can be heard and determined,” Judge Applegarth said.

In granting the temporary injunction, Judge Applegarth said the proceedings had ‘attracted publicity’, leading to a ‘significant risk’ that the high-profile man’s identity would be published as early as October 3.

On October 13, Mr Lehrmann’s legal team and lawyers acting on behalf of the media stood before the Toowoomba Magistrates Court, where his legal team argued that the order should remain in place.

Lawyer Andrew Hoare, acting for Lehrmann, said there was a “real existing risk of harm” to his client if his identity were published.

He said the man was suffering from “severe” suicidal thoughts that had manifested over the years.

Mr Hoare said his client could be in serious danger of self-harm, which he said made it necessary for the order to continue.

But Robert Anderson KC, representing the media, said Lehrmann had not given evidence in court, but instead relied on his lawyers and his psychologist.

He noted that Mr. Lehrmann was willing to make certain statements public but was “unprepared” to appear in court and give evidence himself.

Mr Anderson said the defendant had ‘no automatic right to protection’ under the recent changes to the legislation, and that the female complainant wanted his name made public.

“It is important that the voice of the complainant is heard,” he said.

‘She wants the name of the suspect mentioned. It’s not neutral, it’s an active voice.’

Mr. Anderson referred to several public statements made by Mr. Lehrmann.

“There is a disbelief between the applicant’s public presentation and what is said by… (his) doctor,” he said.

‘It was incompatible.

“The applicant said nothing directly to Your Honor. He chose to remain silent.”

Mr. Anderson indicated that Mr. Lehrmann was willing to speak his own truth, but still asked the court to prevent the public from knowing who he is and to prevent open justice.

He also said the man tried to deny the complainant’s voice.

“He has voluntarily placed himself in a very public forum in a way that will inevitably expose all of his circumstances and require him to explain them,” Anderson said.

‘His lawyers told him to keep his mouth shut, and he rejected that advice.

“He wants to be heard, anywhere but here.”

Mr Lehrmann’s application to withhold his name was unsuccessful, but a temporary adjournment was imposed until October 26 so that his legal representatives could appeal the decision.

In an unrelated case, Mr Lehrmann went on trial last year, accused of assaulting his former parliamentary colleague Brittany Higgins in 2019.

He had pleaded not guilty to raping Ms Higgins at Parliament House while the pair were staffers in former Defense Secretary Linda Reynolds’ office.

The trial was aborted due to juror misconduct.

The Director of Public Prosecutions declined to pursue a retrial over concerns about Ms Higgins’ mental health and dropped the charges against Mr Lehrmann.

Mr. Lehrmann has continued to deny the allegations.

Mr Lehrmann’s case in Queensland remains in court.

His lawyer Rowan King told the Toowoomba Magistrates Court at an earlier appearance that he would try to keep his client’s name suppressed when disclosure laws came into effect.

On the last occasion, the court was told that ‘thousands’ of pages of telephone records had been reviewed by prosecutors as part of the case.

Another 800 pages of phone records had yet to be reviewed, Attorney General Nicole Friedewald said.

The recent change to Queensland law was one of the key recommendations of the Women’s Safety and Justice Taskforce to bring Queensland’s laws into line with those of other states and territories.

Besides the Northern Territory, Queensland was the only state or territory with such protection.

The specific change removes restrictions in the Criminal Law (Sexual Offenses) Act 1978 that prohibit the identification of those accused of rape or crimes such as attempted rape, assault with intent to commit rape and sexual assault.

Those accused of these sexual offenses will now be treated in the same way as those accused of any other crime, with details of their identities able to be published.

Exceptions apply if this would identify or lead to the identification of the complainant.