Page:Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment).pdf/241

 right thing to do” and a “basic tenet of good journalism that if you are airing an accusation about someone, you have to seek comment from them” (Llewellyn (at [323])).

864   This evidence is difficult to reconcile with the contemporaneous records and the objective facts as to seeking comment for this story.

865   As early as the first meeting, the participants had the following exchange (which is revealing as to the nature of the relationship) which touched upon several matters, including Mr Llewellyn’s attitude to naming Mr Lehrmann and providing a right to respond (Ex 36 (at 0:45:22)):

Mr Llewellyn:

Yeah. Well, I mean, they're obviously, when it comes to naming Bruce.

Ms Higgins:

Yep, he, that's fine, I don’t expect that ever to happen.

Mr Llewellyn:

Well -

Ms Wilkinson:

Depends on whether you want to press charges.

Ms Higgins:

If I can, after estimates, definitely.

Mr Llewellyn:

Yeah. And then, when it comes to defamation, he's reputation is clearly going to be lowered by being called a rapist. And whether people could identify him -

Ms Higgins:

I would love to -

Mr Llewellyn:

- by the story.

Ms Higgins:

- have the court case on civil. If he wants to go me after, like on a civil basis, I think, on the balance of probabilities, I think I could win. I think it’s, if the onus of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, I think that would be different. I don’t think I could win that.

Mr Llewellyn:

Yeah. So, I mean, this is a discussion to have with -

Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369