Bruce Lehrmann revealed as high-profile man charged with Toowoomba rape

Bruce Lehrmann has been revealed as the “high-profile” man accused of raping a woman in Toowoomba two years ago.

Lehrmann can now be named after his lawyers lost their judicial review of a Toowoomba magistrate’s ruling that he should not be granted a non-publication order to maintain his anonymity.

Lehrmann is charged with two counts of raping a woman in October 2021, with the case working its way through early committal proceedings at Toowoomba magistrates court since January. He has not yet been committed to stand trial.

The former political staffer was thrown into the national spotlight in February 2021 after he was accused of raping another woman, former colleague and Liberal staffer Brittany Higgins, at Parliament House in Canberra in 2019. He has always maintained his innocence, pleading not guilty at trial and later telling Seven Network’s Spotlight program in June: “It simply didn’t happen.”

Until recently, Queensland law prevented him from named with respect to the Toowoomba allegations.

However, the state introduced new laws in September to allow the naming of accused sex offenders after they are charged. Previously they could only be named after being committed to stand trial. The change brought the state into line with most other states and territories.

Following the law change, Lehrmann’s barrister, Andrew Hoare, sought a non-publication order on two grounds, arguing that revealing his client’s identity could prejudice Toowoomba jurors against him and that the intense public scrutiny could deteriorate his mental health and increase the likelihood of his self-harm.

However at a hearing on 13 October, magistrate Clare Kelly rejected both arguments, and this decision was upheld by the supreme court on Thursday.

The judicial review and non-publication order were opposed by numerous media companies, including Guardian Australia, ABC, Nine, News Corp publications and Network Ten, as well as Queensland police.

Mental health evidence ‘difficult to accept’

In reaching her earlier decision, Kelly acknowledged the defendant’s “vulnerabilities” given “the events of the last couple of years”, but noted he was not currently linked with a mental health professional nor was there any evidence he was being prescribed medication for his mental health.

“That is a decision made by the defendant,” she said.

The magistrate found parts of the evidence submitted for the defendant by clinical psychologist Dr James Brown “difficult to accept”.

Kelly agreed instead with the argument of Rob Anderson, who represented the media companies, and

said that the defence’s portrayal of the defendant was “incongruent” with a man who had conducted a series of prime time, extended media interviews after he had been charged for the alleged Toowoomba rape.

“He wants to be heard everywhere except here, it seems,” Anderson told the court.

He noted that the alleged rape victim wanted Lehrmann to be named.

Kelly accepted that revealing the defendant’s identity would result in intense media scrutiny but said that the principle of open justice in this case was “very much aligned with the public interest”.

She said “embarrassing, damaging or even dangerous facts” coming to light in an open court was a sacrifice that had to be made upon the altar of the public interest.

“Otherwise, powerful litigants may come to think that they can extract from courts or prosecuting authorities protection greater than that enjoyed by ordinary parties whose problems come before the courts and may be openly reported,” she said.

Kelly also dismissed the argument that naming Lehrmann could prejudice jurors against him, saying Toowoomba could not be considered a “rural or remote” location – a criteria required for non-publication exemptions – and that the defendant was not a resident of the community. Revealing his identity in the regional Queensland city would be no different than it would in any other Australian city, she said.

Judge backs magistrate’s assessment

At a judicial review heard on Thursday, Hoare tried to convince Justice Peter Applegarth that Kelly made an error by considering his client’s failure to seek out a mental health plan or medication in assessing his risk of self harm.

The barrister argued that the magistrate had not properly assessed the risk that his client faced, and lacked evidence to decide that his appearance in prime time media interviews was at odds with his portrayal in their psychologist’s report.

“It may be a seductive fact, but there’s no proper basis to draw conclusion that a person’s risk is static,” Hoare said. “The risk is something which is fluid, it is very much determined by the circumstances in which a person finds themselves.”

But Applegarth responded by saying that the defence would have been better served by demonstrating the defendant’s external presentation in those media interviews was at odds with his internal state of mental health – that his talk of lighting fires was “bravado”, that he was putting on a brave face but “felt rotten inside” or that after giving the interviews he had fallen off an emotional cliff.

skip past newsletter promotion

Our Australian morning briefing breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it matters

Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

after newsletter promotion

“None of these things are said,” Applegarth said.

The judge concluded it was reasonable for a magistrate “absent that kind of explanation” to “place less weight on Dr Brown’s report”.

“A cynic might say: ‘I hope Channel 7 paid him, or his solicitors, a lot of money’, for the consequences it had on his application, if nothing else,” Applegarth said.

In announcing his decision, the judge said that while the potential to be named “weighed heavily” on Lehrmann, this “unfortunate effect on his mental health” did not compel a finding that “a non-publication order was necessary” to protect his safety.

“The supreme court concluded that, given the state of the evidence, it was open to a reasonable decision-maker to not be satisfied that the non-publication order was necessary to protect the safety of the applicant.”

The media’s legal team and the police prosecutors will seek costs.

Defamation action ongoing

Lehrmann shot to prominence during the Higgins case, after she alleged she was raped in a parliamentary office in March 2019.

Having revealed the alleged events in media interviews in February 2021, Higgins subsequently made a complaint to police and Lehrmann was first named as the accused after being charged in August 2021.

An initial criminal trial into Higgins’ allegations was discontinued after juror misconduct. In December 2022, prosecutors dropped the charges against Lehrmann.

A subsequent inquiry into authorities’ handling of the investigation, led by Walter Sofronoff, found “several serious findings of misconduct” against outgoing ACT director of public prosecutions, Shane Drumgold SC. Drumgold has subsequently launched legal action against the findings.

Lehrmann is also currently suing Network 10, journalist Lisa Wilkinson and the ABC over broadcasts he says defamed him by falsely alleging he raped Higgins.

The defamation trial is expected to kick off in late November.

Committal proceedings for the Toowoomba case began in January.

His lawyer has requested the alleged victim provide 19 months of phone records, including six months of data before the date of the alleged offence.

Prosecutors are now going through the phone data before deciding whether to agree to its release.

The case is set to return to Toowoomba magistrates court on Wednesday 1 November.

The Queensland government agreed to change its laws around the naming of accused sex offenders after accepting a recommendation last year from the women’s safety and justice taskforce.

The taskforce found there was no reason to treat those accused of sexual offences differently from those charged with other criminal offences, which allow alleged offenders to be named after they are charged.

In Australia, support is available at 1800Respect (1800 737 732).