Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Covert Recording)

Link copied
Case Copied 12 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Covert Recording) [2023] FCA 1586

File number: NSD 103 of 2023
Judgment of: LEE J
Date of judgment: 12 December 2023
Date of publication of reasons: 13 December 2023
Catchwords: EVIDENCE – admissibility of covert recordings of two conversations made by Ms Brittany Higgins– whether s 10 of the Listening Devices Act 1992 (ACT) “picked up” in federal jurisdiction– provision not picked up as s 56(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) “otherwise provides” – recordings admitted
Legislation:

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 55, 56(1), 136

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss 79, 79(1)

Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth) s 9(3)

Listening Devices Act 1992 (ACT) s 10

Cases cited:

Crosby v Kelly [2012] FCAFC 96; (2012) 203 FCR 451

Herron v HarperCollins Publishers Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FCAFC 68; (2022) 292 FCR 336

Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Other Federal Jurisdiction
Number of paragraphs: 25
Date of hearing: 12 December 2023
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr S Whybrow SC and Mr M Richardson SC with Mr N Olson and Mr D Helvadjian
Solicitor for the Applicant: Mark O’Brien Legal
Counsel for the First Respondent: Dr M Collins KC with Mr T Senior
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Thomson Geer Lawyers
Counsel for the Second Respondent: Ms S Chrysanthou SC with Mr B Dean
Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Gillis Delaney Lawyers

ORDERS

NSD 103 of 2023
BETWEEN:

BRUCE LEHRMANN

Applicant

AND:

NETWORK TEN PTY LIMITED ACN 052 515 250

First Respondent

LISA WILKINSON

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

LEE J

DATE OF ORDER:

12 DECEMBER 2023

THE COURT RULES THAT:

1.The covert recordings made by Ms Brittany Higgins of:

(a)the conversation between Ms Higgins and Mr Daniel Try on 28 January 2021; and

(b)the conversation between Senator Michaelia Cash, Ms Higgins and Mr Try on 5 February 2021,

be admitted into evidence.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR RULING
(delivered ex tempore, revised from the transcript)

LEE J:

  1. During the cross-examination of Ms Brittany Higgins almost two weeks ago, counsel for Mr Bruce Lehrmann, Mr Whybrow SC, sought to play an audio recording of a conversation between Senator Michaelia Cash, Ms Higgins and the Senator’s chief of staff, Mr Daniel Try, on 5 February 2021. It is common ground that the recording was made by Ms Higgins after she had started engaging with Network Ten Pty Limited (Network Ten) to make allegations of rape and obstruction. It is also uncontroversial that it was made secretly and hence without the consent of the other participants.

  2. When the tender was proposed, I asked whether the recording was a “covert recording of a telephone … conversation”: T854.18–19. Mr Whybrow confirmed that it was. Discussion then took place as to whether the adduction into evidence of the recording and the playing of the recording could contravene the Listening Devices…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Covert Recording) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2023] FCA 1586
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited involved a dispute regarding the admissibility of covert recordings of two conversations between Brittany Higgins and others. The matter was before the Federal Court of Australia, where the primary issue was whether section 10 of the Listening Devices Act 1992 (ACT) applied to prevent the admission of the recordings in federal court proceedings. The court was required to determine whether this section was "picked up" by federal jurisdiction under section 56(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), which states that federal law "otherwise provides" for the admissibility of evidence.

The court examined the language of section 56(1) and concluded that it did not expressly address the admissibility of evidence obtained via covert recordings. Consequently, the court found that section 10 of the Listening Devices Act 1992 (ACT) was not "picked up" by federal jurisdiction. This interpretation meant that the prohibitions on the admissibility of evidence from covert recordings did not extend to federal court proceedings, allowing the recordings to be admitted as evidence. The decision hinged on the understanding that federal law did not otherwise regulate the admissibility of such evidence, thus leaving the matter to be governed by the provisions of the Listening Devices Act 1992 (ACT) in the ACT jurisdiction.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Mr Whybrow seeks to play both recordings in open Court, cross-examine upon them, and then tender them in Mr Lehrmann’s case. Senior counsel for Network Ten, Dr Collins KC, has raised with me his concern as to the prohibition in s 10 of the Listening Devices Act, which is in the following terms:10 Admissibility of evidence obtained using listening devices(1)If a private conversation, or a report of a private conversation, has come to the knowledge of a person as a result (direct or indirect) of the use of a listening device in contravention of section 4, or as a result (direct or indirect) of the use of a listening device in circumstances referred to in section 4 (2) (b) or 4 (3)—(a)evidence of the conversation; or(b)evidence obtained as a direct consequence of the conversation so coming to the knowledge of that person;may not be given by that person in any civil or criminal proceedings.(2) Subsection (1) does not apply—(a)if each principal party to the conversation consents to the evidence being given; or(b)in proceedings for an offence against this Act; or(c)if the listening device was used in the circumstances referred to in section 4 (3) (b) (i)—so as to render any evidence inadmissible for the purpose of protecting the lawful interests of the principal party to the conversation who consented to the use of the device; or(d)in proceedings for a defined offence if, subject to subsection (4), a court considers that the evidence should be admitted; or(e)if the person referred to in subsection (1) also obtains knowledge of the conversation or report in circumstances other than those referred to in that subsection.(3)Subsection (2) (c) does not apply so as to render admissible evidence that has been obtained, directly or indirectly, by the use of a listening device by or on behalf of the Territory.(4)In determining whether to admit evidence referred to in subsection (1) in proceedings for a defined offence, the court shall—(a)be guided by the public interest, including (if relevant) the public interest in—(i) upholding the law; and(ii) protecting people from illegal or unfair treatment; and(iii) punishing those guilty of offences; and(b) have regard to all relevant matters, including—(i)the seriousness of the offence in relation to which the evidence is sought to be admitted; and(ii)the nature of the relevant contravention of section 4, or of the relevant circumstances referred to in section 4 (2) (b) or 4 (3).(5)A court before which evidence referred to in subsection (1) is admitted in proceedings for an offence against this Act, or proceedings for a defined offence, may, at any stage of the proceedings, and from time to time, make an order forbidding the publication of—(a)any such evidence; or(b)any report of any such evidence; or(c)any report of the substance, meaning or purport of any such evidence.(6)A person must not engage in conduct that contravenes an order under subsection (5).Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units, imprisonment for 6 months or both.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.