Bruce Lehrmann weighing up legal options in shock move after judge found that he raped Brittany Higgins

Bruce Lehrmann is considering appealing a federal court ruling after a judge found he raped Brittany Higgins.

The move comes after he lost his defamation case against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson when Judge Michael Lee handed down his verdict at the Federal Court in Sydney on April 15.

The ruling found that Network Ten and Ms Wilkinson had not defamed Lehrmann in an interview with Ms Higgins that aired on The Project in February 2021, where a former Liberal staffer alleged that an unnamed colleague accused her of murdering her two years earlier Parliament House had been raped.

Lehrmann claimed that friends and colleagues were able to identify him as the alleged rapist. He has always maintained his innocence.

He has since appointed a legal team led by leading barrister Guy Reynolds SC to appeal Judge Lee’s ruling to avoid having to pay a mounting legal bill. The Australian reported.

Lerhmann is reportedly looking to raise money from donors in Australia and abroad to cover legal costs as he is currently unemployed.

It is believed that Mr Reynolds is confident that an appeal against Ten and Wilkinson’s truth case would be successful, and could result in some costs being borne by Ten.

The leading lawyer’s previous clients include Eddie Obeid, Man Haron Monis, Mick Gatto and Peter Dutton.

“Guy Reynolds is a gun. He is known as one of the best constitutional lawyers, has appeared in the Supreme Court and has a huge reputation,” legal commentator Chris Merritt told Sky News.

‘Before he came on the scene, I would have thought Bruce Lehrmann’s professional prospects were quite slim, but with Guy Reynolds in the team you have to say there might be something substantial going on.’

The appeal plan is likely to be flagged when the first hearing on costs is held in the Federal Court on Wednesday.

The hearing will discuss the issue of costs, with Channel Ten and Lisa Wilkinson seeking a costs order against Lehrmann.

Lehrmann has 28 days to appeal the Federal Court’s ruling.

It is also understood that Lehrmann could consider asking for a 28-day extension of the appeal period, as Ben Roberts-Smith initially did.

Lawyers familiar with the verdict believe there is one legal question on which any challenge will focus: news.com.au reported.

That question concerns what Judge Lee calls “the knowledge element,” which depends on his reasoning that he was satisfied that Lehrmann knew that Ms. Higgins did not consent.

Brittany Higgins (pictured) made allegations against the former Liberal staffer during a 2021 episode of the project, which Bruce Lehrmann has always denied

Judge Lee ruled on the balance of probabilities, the standard of proof in civil proceedings, that Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins in the office of former Defense Secretary Linda Reynolds.

Channel Ten told the court after the ruling that Lehrmann must pay for their legal costs, which total more than a whopping $10 million.

Lehrmann opposed the claim, saying he is only liable for part of the legal costs as Judge Lee ruled the broadcaster engaged in negligent conduct when The Project episode aired.

Judge Lee also ruled that Ms. Wilkinson and the network failed to meet their qualified defense of privilege.

This means that, on the balance of probabilities, the broadcaster and Ms Wilkinson failed to meet the required standard to publish the story of the allegations against Lehrmann in a reasonable manner that made it relevant to the public interest.

Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson (pictured) won the defamation case brought by Lehrmann against the network and the former host of The Project

Comments from Ten lawyer Justin Quill may also be mentioned during the trial hearing, after Mr Quill addressed the media following Judge Lee’s ruling.

He praised the outcome of the ruling, which he said was a resounding victory for Network Ten.

Judge Lee ordered copies of Mr Quill’s comments after the lawyer, who is also a partner at law firm Thomas Greer, questioned parts of the ruling.

‘In terms of the reasonableness of Channel Ten, the way in which judges and lawyers – and this is the problem with defamation law in Australia – the way in which judges and lawyers pick apart and dissect what journalists did or did not do in applying a legal threshold or a legal assessment of reasonableness is often disconnected from reality,” he said.

“And that’s why the qualified privilege defense rarely stands up.”

Comments from Channel 10 attorney Justin Quill (pictured) may also be mentioned during Wednesday’s hearing

.