Lehrmann. Having said that, the fact that Mr Lehrmann has told the deliberate and material lies identified when he knew the truth, would, if that fact had been considered by me, only have served to fortify the conclusion I have reached independently of taking into account any implied admission.
VIConclusion on Rape
620 Mr Lehrmann raped Ms Higgins.
621 I hasten to stress; this is a finding on the balance of probabilities. This finding should not be misconstrued or mischaracterised as a finding that I can exclude all reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence. As I have explained, there is a substantive difference between the criminal standard of proof and the civil standard of proof and, as the tribunal of fact, I have only to be reasonably satisfied that Mr Lehrmann has acted as I have found, and I am not obliged to reach that degree of certainty necessary to support conviction upon a criminal charge.
VIIDifferences between Imputations
622 Given the agreement between the parties as reflected in the agreed issues for determination document, one would have thought that this necessarily means that the substantial truth defence is made out. But in final written submissions, Mr Lehrmann has raised a further issue the scope of which was, at least initially, unclear.
623 To understand it, for ease of reference, it is worth again setting out the imputations which are admitted were conveyed:
- (1) [Mr Lehrmann] raped [Ms] Higgins in Defence Minister Linda Reynolds' office in 2019 (Imputation A).
- (2) [Mr Lehrmann] continued to rape [Ms] Higgins after she woke up mid-rape and was crying and telling him to stop at least half a dozen times (Imputation B).
- (3) [Mr Lehrmann], whilst raping [Ms] Higgins, crushed his leg against her leg so forcefully as to cause a large bruise (Imputation C).
- (4) after [Mr Lehrmann] finished raping [Ms] Higgins, he left her on a couch in a state of undress with her dress up around her waist (Imputation D).
