Ms Higgins:
Lawyers.
Mr Llewellyn:
- the lawyers and stuff. But my feeling is that, if we didn’t name him, and still, we may as well have named him. Because so many people would be able to identify him from the position and that kind of stuff. And various witnesses and stuff like that. So -
Mr Sharaz:
You toss up whether to just bother, just do it.
Mr Llewellyn:
Well, it's -
Ms Higgins:
He'll still come after us? Sorry, this is probably a conversation for a lawyer.
Mr Llewellyn:
Yeah, it's something that I'd need to sort of figure out with the lawyer and then come back to you and then decide. But if we, so, presuming that it's virtually impossible to, depending on how far, how many details you go through, it can either lead to identifying him or reducing that to quite a small number of people that it could possibly be. Which is still just as much as you could name him anyway. And so, therefore, we should be going, if we're making the accusation about him, as well as making the accusations against all the people who have been -
Ms Wilkinson:
The systems.
Mr Llewellyn:
The systems and covering up, then we, at the right time, so as to prevent there being injunctions and things like that.
Ms Higgins:
Yep.
Mr Llewellyn:
We would go to him and we would go to minister's office, if we're making accusations, we have to give everyone a reasonable chance to reply. And reasonable can be pretty iffy, as long as it's not five minutes before broadcast. And if it's ten minutes, we should be okay.
866 In cross-examination (T1643–4), Mr Llewellyn attempted to explain away this bolded comment by suggesting that he thought Ms Higgins and Mr Sharaz had been shocked by appreciating that Mr Lehrmann needed to be approached and that he had said this "to break the ice, I'm just sort of saying – using a bit of humour".
