Lehrmann’s court feud with corruption watchdog over ‘frivolous, James Bond like allegations’

Former federal Liberal staffer Bruce Lehrmann has claimed he is in a financially “dire situation” as he represents himself in a court fight with the national corruption watchdog over his legal bills.

Lehrmann initiated proceedings against the National Anti-Corruption Commission and the Commonwealth in the Federal Court’s NSW registry last week.

Bruce Lehrmann photographed in Queensland in June last year.Credit: Dan Peled

“I have commenced proceedings against the Commonwealth and the NACC. I will unfortunately be representing myself at this stage, at no disrespect to the Federal Court,” Lehrmann said in a statement on Tuesday.

“Such is this public saga, it is known that I am financially in a dire situation and in significant personal turmoil. This action was brought out of necessity, accountability and the rule of law.

“I have informed the court that I fully support public and media access to these proceedings in accordance with the rules.”

Loading

According to a document filed in court, Lehrmann is seeking declarations by the court that he is eligible for Commonwealth funding for legal costs incurred in complying with two NACC investigations, and that the Commonwealth has “unreasonably delayed a grant of funding” and denied him procedural fairness.

He is also seeking an injunction halting any NACC investigation involving him until the final determination of the Federal Court proceedings relating to his legal costs.

Lehrmann says in the document that the NACC executed two search warrants related to him on June 5 last year concerning an investigation into “frivolous, James Bond-like allegations” that he used “official” information – described by him as “French submarine secrets” – gathered on March 26, 2019, for “financial, personal and professional purposes”.

He claims that he was told by NACC officers at the time that he would be entitled to “funding for legal representation throughout the NACC process”, and that he has incurred substantial legal costs in reliance on that assurance.

He says it is “well established” that he is in “serious financial peril” and alleges the NACC and the Commonwealth “appear recklessly indifferent” to the damaging effect the watchdog’s processes have on former political staffers “when frivolous allegations are advanced”.

Lehrmann also claims he has been questioned in relation to a second NACC investigation, and that he continues to be represented by a senior barrister and a solicitor in relation to both investigations “as they have not been finalised”.

Bruce Lehrmann’s lawyer Zali Burrows, pictured at the Federal Court in October.Credit: Edwina Pickles

Lehrmann’s lawyer, Zali Burrows, confirmed last year that her client’s home had been raided by the NACC on June 5.

Lehrmann was employed by then-defence industry minister Linda Reynolds in 2019 and claimed in his defamation case against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson that he was involved in work relating to “the French submarine contract” that was later cancelled in favour of the AUKUS deal with the United States and Britain.

The NACC and the Commonwealth have yet to file a response to Lehrmann’s application in court.

Loading

In a separate fight, Lehrmann has asked the Full Court of the Federal Court to overturn his damning defamation loss, including the central finding by Justice Michael Lee that he raped his then-colleague Brittany Higgins in 2019 in Reynolds’ Parliament House office.

Burrows said in submissions to the Full Court last month that her client’s failed defamation case was a “quasi-criminal trial” and the presiding judge had insufficient evidence to find the former federal Liberal staffer was a rapist.

In his decision last year, Lee was satisfied Ten and Wilkinson had proven to the civil standard – on the balance of probabilities – that Lehrmann raped Higgins. Lehrmann has always maintained his innocence.

Burrows said in written submissions filed in the defamation appeal that “where the evidence is inadequate, it may simply not be possible to judge the likelihood that something happened reliably enough to reach a rational conclusion one way or the other on the balance of probabilities”.

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.

Most Viewed in Politics

Loading