Page:Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment).pdf/243

 867 Given the way Ms Higgins had not been challenged and her account taken at face value, perhaps she and Mr Sharaz did believe that no attempt would be made to seek out those affected by the story before broadcast, however naïve that might seem. I accept that Mr Llewellyn was using humour, but it was humour revealing an underlying truth.

868 The approach taken was to ask "questions [which] are really to cover us off for defamation" (Ex R541), which Ms Wilkinson understood (T1862–1863). Despite the seriousness of the allegations to be made, there was no genuine desire to engage with anyone other than Ms Higgins in terms of content for the broadcast. This approach is unsurprising since those responsible for the programme had convinced themselves as to its veracity. Indeed, Mr Llewellyn went so far as to advise Ms Wilkinson that if any of the email recipients agreed to an interview, they were only going to be asked questions as to which Network Ten already knew the answer (Ex R541).

869 Reflecting this approach, Mr Llewellyn wanted the requests to go out as late as practicable and they went out late on Friday afternoon, 12 February, with a 10am Monday deadline. As Mr Meakin frankly acknowledged (T1958.34–37), it was unlikely that there would be time to re-interview Ms Higgins and, consistently with the process being a box-ticking exercise, the Project team did not contact her in relation to any of the information as it arrived.

870 Dealing with Mr Lehrmann, Network Ten sent detailed questions to Mr Lehrmann's Hotmail account at 2:46pm on 12 February (Ex R40) and a follow-up email on the morning of 15 February (Ex R756). No response was received. This was unsurprising for two reasons.

871 The first is that I am not satisfied Mr Lehrmann received either the 12 or 15 February request for comment via his Hotmail address (which together with an email address of a former employer had been sourced from Mr Sharaz). The notion that such evidence was "incredible" is wholly overstated, he gave evidence as to the general frequency with which he reviewed his Hotmail account (Lehrmann (at [15(a)])) and, more significantly, there is no other contemporaneous record, such as texts, suggesting he was aware of what was about to hit him (until his first message with a friend after publication of the Maiden article at 10:29am on 15 February) (MC (at 69)).

872 The fact of receipt is not in itself important, but what is of significance is that Mr Llewellyn could not reasonably assume the Hotmail address would be regularly consulted. Nor was the use of a mobile number from a press release dated October 2018 (given it was known Mr Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369