An Australian court has decisively rejected a high-profile defamation appeal, finding former political aide Bruce Lehrmann raped a colleague and knew she did not consent.

The ruling on Wednesday, 3 December 2025, not only demolishes Lehrmann's attempt to overturn a damaging civil judgment but intensifies its conclusions. This case, revolving around a 2019 incident in Canberra's Parliament House, has gripped Australia and sparked a national conversation about consent, justice, and the power of the press—a conversation with echoes in Kenya's own struggles with sexual and gender-based violence.

Lehrmann had sued Network Ten and journalist Lisa Wilkinson for defamation over a 2021 television interview where Brittany Higgins alleged she was raped by a colleague. While the original trial judge, Michael Lee, dismissed Lehrmann's lawsuit in April 2024 by finding the rape allegation true on the "balance of probabilities," the appeal court went a step further. The full bench argued Justice Lee should have also found that Lehrmann was cognitively aware that Higgins did not consent to intercourse.

A Decisive Rejection

The appeal judges unanimously dismissed all four of Lehrmann's arguments. His legal team had contended that the original trial was procedurally unfair and that the judge had erred in his findings. The court methodically dismantled these claims, upholding the original verdict and reinforcing the media's defence of truth.

Lehrmann's failed appeal included challenging the finding that he should only have been awarded a token sum of around $20,000 AUD (approx. KES 1.7 million) even if he had won. The court rejected this as well, leaving him facing potentially ruinous legal costs estimated in the millions of dollars.

Key grounds for the appeal's dismissal included:

• The original proceedings were not procedurally unfair to Lehrmann.
• The judge's interpretation of how an ordinary viewer would understand the rape allegation was correct.
• Network 10 and Wilkinson had successfully proven the truth of their report.
• The minimal potential damages awarded were appropriate.

Strengthened Findings on Consent

Crucially, the appeal judges sharpened the legal conclusion about Lehrmann's state of mind. They asserted that based on the evidence, Lehrmann would have known his junior colleague—described as "very drunk, passive and silent"—was not consenting. This moves the finding from recklessness regarding consent to an actual awareness of its absence, a significant distinction in the discourse around sexual assault.

The judgment noted that Lehrmann was not significantly intoxicated and was aware of the circumstances. This finding is a powerful statement on the nature of affirmative consent and is being hailed by advocates as a vindication for Brittany Higgins, who gave a voice to women across the nation.

While Lehrmann has the option to seek a final appeal in Australia's High Court, this judgment marks a definitive moment. It underscores the immense personal and financial risks of using defamation law to silence accusers and the media outlets that report their stories.