How one detail undid Bruce Lehrmann’s bid to keep his identity a secret after he was unmasked as the ‘high profile man’ charged with rape in Toowoomba

When Bruce Lehrmann “broke his silence” on one of the country's most high-profile rape cases, he was talking about retaliation.

“Let's light some fires,” he said in the first of two exclusive interviews with the Seven Network's Spotlight program in June.

“Everything should be public so people can judge this for what it is.”

But at the time he was facing other separate, serious charges.

In early 2023, police announced that two charges had been laid against Lehrmann over an incident in his old hometown of Toowoomba in 2021.

Under Queensland laws that prevented the identification of people accused of prescribed sex crimes, he was given the title: the 'high profile man'.

Mr Lehrmann has not yet entered a plea to the Toowoomba charges and has not appeared in court since they were laid by police, although he reportedly denies the charges.

In between the various citations at the Toowoomba Magistrates Court, a titanic legal battle was developing in the background between Mr Lehrmann's legal team and the media, who were trying to identify him as the man facing this serious charge.

It escalated into an eleventh-hour appeal to the Supreme Court, as Lehrmann's lawyers tried to keep his name out of the media.

But that appeal would end with a reprimand from Supreme Court Justice Peter Applegarth, and any journalist who mentioned him by name would again be linked to rape allegations.

In a final blow, Mr Lehrmann's legal team could be ordered to pay the costs of the failed application.

Why could Mr Lehrmann not be mentioned by name?

Under section 7 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offenses) Act 1978 in Queensland, people charged with prescribed sexual offenses such as rape, attempted rape, assault with intent to commit rape and sexual assault could not be identified by the media.

The protection would not be lifted until the person was required to stand trial in a higher court.

The state's Women's Safety and Justice Taskforce called for a review of this restriction, amid extensive consultation with sexual assault survivors.

It was one of 188 recommendations presented to the Queensland government and Shannon Fentiman, the state's then attorney-general, earlier this year.

Until October 3, Queensland was the only state in Australia where this law remained in force – besides the Northern Territory.

On that date, these restrictions were abolished by the state government, effectively allowing media entities to name people accused of rape, sexual assault and the like.

Yvette D'Ath, Queensland's current attorney-general, said the changes would keep victims' interests “at the forefront of reforms”.

“Rape and sexual assault are some of the most under-reported crimes in Australia,” Ms D'Ath said on September 13.

The media was preparing to mention Mr Lehrmann by name once restrictions were lifted in Queensland.

But a bid in the High Court in Brisbane resulted in an interim non-publication order (NPO) at the end of September.

In separate proceedings in Canberra, Mr Lehrmann was tried for the alleged rape of Ms Higgins in a ministerial office at Parliament House in March 2019.

Mr Lehrmann had pleaded not guilty to a single charge of sexual intercourse without consent.

The trial was abandoned due to juror misconduct and the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions declined to proceed with a retrial due to concerns about Ms Higgins' mental health, dropping charges against Mr Lehrmann.

Mr Lehrmann has strongly denied allegations that he ever had sex with Ms Higgins.

'He chose to remain silent'

Lehrmann's media appearances were already under scrutiny in October.

It wasn't just his appearance in the Spotlight that raised questions. The morning after there was also an appearance on breakfast television, along with another interview with Sky News' Sharri Markson.

In stark contrast to those appearances, Mr Lehrmann remained silent when his cases went to trial in Queensland.

In fact, he never showed up on the day of his legal team's application to continue the non-publication order in Toowoomba.

Lehrmann's attorneys moved to have this order continued in the interest of protecting their client from harm.

Lawyers representing media outlets including News Corp Australia opposed it.

Mr Lehrmann's promise to 'light some fires' came under criticism during the proceedings after further questions were raised about his mental health in light of the media comments.

Lawyer Andrew Hoare, who is representing Mr Lehrmann, said his client was at serious risk of self-harm if his identity were made public.

Letters from Mr. Lehrmann's treating psychologist were presented to the court as evidence.

The court was asked to consider 'the potential harmful and psychological consequences of the publication of his name' and how this could 'significantly compromise' his psychological well-being.

“A reignited 'media frenzy' would likely seriously worsen his depressive symptoms and 'offer a real potential to increase his risk of suicide,'” Justice Applegarth's Supreme Court ruling said.

One particular line in Mr Lehrmann's psychological report, referring to his separate defamation proceedings and media interviews, said: 'These should not be misinterpreted as evidence of his full recovery, or that his mental health is of no real concern is; on the contrary, these actions by Bruce to come forward and tell his story and take legal action have taken significant effort and strength on his part, often costing him dearly in psychological terms, leading to periods of severe depression after certain stress points.” .

Robert Anderson QC, appearing for the media, said Mr Lehrmann had not gone to court to give evidence of his poor mental health.

He pointed to Mr. Lehrmann's public statements, through multiple media outlets, as “incongruent” with a man so ill that he would risk self-harm if named in the proceedings.

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

“He wants to be heard everywhere but here.”

Magistrate Clare Kelly ultimately refused to continue the order, saying Mr Lehrmann had actively placed himself in the public eye with his interviews.

“She (the magistrate) took the view that this was 'contrary to the claim that the media pursuit was relentless',” the Supreme Court judgment said.

The high-profile man is revealed

Even as the order was withdrawn, Lehrmann's legal team launched a last-ditch effort to keep his name anonymous.

A temporary stay of the order was granted until a judicial review of Magistrate Kelly's decision was heard on October 26.

That day, Judge Applegarth quashed any hope that Lehrmann would keep his identity secret, finding it unnecessary to protect his safety.

His judgment noted that affidavits from Mr Lehrmann's team did not address the circumstances under which he took part in the television interviews in June and August, nor his state of mind at the time.

Judge Applegarth said the magistrate appropriately considered “evidence as to the nature, threat and degree of likelihood of the harm identified.”

“After reviewing the evidence, I was not satisfied that an injunction was 'necessary' to protect his (Mr Lehrmann) safety,” the judgment said.

“She did not suggest that the applicant had the burden of proving that he was more likely than not to harm himself if a non-publication order were refused.

'The applicant did not provide any evidence at the time he gave the interviews that his mental health was precarious.

“(He) must have realized that, once the legislation came into effect, his identity would be publicly revealed unless he made and followed up on the kind of requests he recently made.”