Page:Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment).pdf/269

 940 The distancing of this experienced and high-profile journalist from the circumstances of publication might somehow be linked to the falling out between Network Ten and Ms Wilkinson revealed in the evidence adduced on the cross-claims, but it is unnecessary to form any view about the reason behind the unusual circumstance of there being differences between the defences of the media company and a journalist employed by it. Ms Wilkinson is correct to submit the defence is focused on conduct, and all the attributed conduct of Network Ten is not her conduct.

941 This tension between the picture of a limited role as to publication painted in Ms Wilkinson's final submissions and the Logies speech has already been pointed out, but it also conflicts with other evidence. As Mr Richardson SC colourfully, but accurately, put it in final submissions (T2439.12–34):

MR RICHARDSON: … And now we see her instructing her counsel to say, "Well, I didn't really have that much to do with the programme, particularly near the end". Truly. It's peculiar, your Honour, to say, "Well, the mistakes lie at Ten's door, not mine". The real point is Ms Wilkinson was there at the point of the assessment of Higgins' credibility, the timeline, the five hour meeting on 27 January, the two hour interview on 2 February. She had heard all of the inconsistencies and problems with what Higgins said about the phones, the photograph, Brown, Reynolds and so on. She was gleefully anticipating her hit on Linda Reynolds and the then Coalition government.

Now, we heard yesterday that some kind of actuarial analysis has been undertaken to show that she wasn't copied on something like 80 or 90 per cent of the emails during the editing process, and also that she had no decision making powers. That is well and good, your Honour. What the evidence was, was that she was kept informed of the responses as they arrived, that's paragraph 125 of her affidavit, she was kept informed of the timing of when the requests for comment would go out and also contributed to those requests. That's at paragraphs 112 and 113. And when Mr Llewellyn observed to her that those requests were to cover us off for defamation, she said "cool, understood". That was the conduct she did, and now we hear the submission about her having some kind of lesser responsibility.

If your Honour squints into the horizon and looks far, far away down the end of the river, your Honour will see Mr Llewellyn on a barge destined for the next market town, fate unknown.

942 It is apparent that Ms Wilkinson was eager to assist Ms Higgins in telling her story and that Ms Wilkinson was doing so for reasons personal to her. This was the case from soup to nuts. In this regard, there is a revealing exchange at the first meeting:

Mr Sharaz:

Yeah. I guess, what's your, obviously, we're not stupid, we know that this sort of stuff's transactional. What are you getting out of it, what do you want out of it?

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