A good Thai rubdown for $3,000 on Uncle Kerry’s credit card sounds like a treat – reminiscent of the time Ron Medich arranged for “Tiffanie” to provide a treatment for NSW energy minister Ian Macdonald at the Four Seasons Hotel in Sydney.
That one only cost $400.
And why wouldn’t a slick Channel Seven TV producer arrange for masseuses to lure an accused rapist for a studio interview. It’s sheer tabloid creativity.
Of course, Lehrmann denies any rotten behaviour, just as he denies raping anyone, in Canberra or Toowoomba.
One step back and there’s news that the leak of Brittany Higgins’ private communications to the media has been referred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission.
Personal information from her diary, text messages and photographs was provided to the police and Bruce Lehrmann’s defence as part of discovery for the Canberra rape case.
Network Ten supplied material used in The Project interview of Brittany Higgins to the AFP under subpoena. These communications were not used at the trial yet they were seen on the interview Bruce Lehrmann did with Channel 7’s Spotlight program.
The NACC is also examining how Higgins’ personal communications were leaked to Janet Albrechtsen and Stephen The Rice Man at The Australian – and again this information had been produced coercively but not used as evidence at the rape trial.
This follows a complaint to the NACC by Brittany Higgins’ lawyer Leon Zwier, with the commission looking into who is responsible for an alleged contempt of court.
There were at least 38 instances where Higgins’ personal communications, exchanges and images appeared in the newspaper and online. Of course, it would be upsetting if the barrow-pushers at The Australian were found to have actively participated in furthering a contempt of court.
Serendipitously, Albrechtsen and Rice produced a long and disjointed article for The Weekend Australian about Leon Zwier and his involvement as Higgins’ lawyer.
For this report the egg beater was on top speed, producing plenty of flummery: “astounding … astonishing … extraordinary … gobsmacked … appalling”.
“Sources” were anonymous, and none were directly quoted: “one” person said … “some sources suggested” … “some” in the legal community … “lawyers who have spoken to The Australian” … etc.
You’d have to take it all at face value.
It was a hit job that failed to land a knockout. Zwier’s complaint about barrister Sue Chrysanthou appearing for Lisa Wilkinson in the Lehrmann defamation case had been ventilated in hearings before Justice Michael Lee, and here it got another treatment.
Zwier’s animus towards the in-demand defamation brief goes back to the Geoffrey Rush case, where the Arnold Bloch Leibler partner saddled up to represent the key witness Eryn Jean Norvill – who claimed to have been subject to Rush’s groping, lewd gestures and comments, smacking of lips, bulging of eyes, and provocative text messages.
Norvill was subjected to a pummelling cross-examination from Bruce McClintock and Chrysanthou – repeatedly accused of lying about the great actor, whom acquaintances well knew to be sleazy when it came to young women.
Zwier also introduced Yael Stone into the plot, another actor who had been sexually intimidated by Rush, and who gave devastating interviews to the ABC and The New York Times.
Rush explained that Stone much have been upset by the “spirited enthusiasm I generally bring to my work”.
Justice Michael Wigney excluded Stone’s evidence, preferring timely case management to establishing the truth. He awarded Rush an eye-popping $2.9 million in damages.