[ad_1]
Lisa Wilkinson has lodged an official criticism with Channel 7, claiming a section on its flagship morning program Dawn aired “false” allegations in opposition to her.
The previous Mission host’s legal professionals took problem with the declare Wilkinson had “coached” Brittany Higgins to construct a marketing campaign in opposition to the person she accused of sexually assaulting her, Bruce Lehrmann.
“That allegation is fake. The fabric (falsely described within the report as ‘secret recordings’) revealed on Highlight on the Seven Community on 4 June 2023 actually doesn’t justify that allegation,” the legal professionals’ letter mentioned.
Wilkinson’s legal professionals declare Seven made no effort to contact the broadcaster in regards to the claims included within the Dawn section, which additionally alleged Ms Higgins had penned an “offended letter” to the host.
“Ms Wilkinson has no report of a letter within the phrases described within the report. We request that you just urgently present a replica in order that our consumer can reply to the claims made,” the letter mentioned.
The criticism additionally prolonged to the Highlight program that includes an interview with Mr Lehrmann that aired parts of a recording of a five-hour assembly between Ms Higgins and Wilkinson.
The audio had been handed over below a search warrant by the Australian Federal Police.
It was not tendered to a current board of inquiry into how legal justice businesses dealt with the case.
Mr Lehrmann is suing Channel 10, Wilkinson and the ABC for defamation over their reporting within the wake of the sexual assault allegation made by Ms Higgins in 2019.
The letters, despatched by regulation agency Gillis Delaney, have been tendered in a 307-page affidavit to the Federal Court docket filed by Marlia Saunders, a lawyer representing Ten.
Included within the affidavit was an e mail from ACT Performing Director of Public Prosecutions Anthony Williamson SC.
He mentioned whereas it appeared proof produced below subpoena had been used improperly, the supply of the leak was unclear.
“One fairly accessible inference is that Mr Lehrmann supplied the fabric to Channel 7 in breach of the enterprise,” Mr Williamson wrote.
“However that, after all, (is) not the one fairly accessible inference. It additionally stays fairly attainable that any variety of different individuals who had entry to the paperwork might have breached it.
“What can also be unclear is the ‘information’ of Channel 7 surrounding the provenance of the paperwork.”
Mr Lehrmann’s barrister vehemently denied his consumer was the supply of the leak in an look earlier than the Federal Court docket final week.
Wilkinson’s legal professionals additionally accused Highlight government producer Mark Llewellyn of not looking for remark to keep away from authorized motion that might have blocked the present’s broadcast.
“The audio recording was a doc produced below subpoena in legal proceedings that was not tendered in courtroom,” they wrote on June 6.
“That is one thing that the Seven Community should have recognized when it used it.
“We infer … you have been conscious an injunction was inevitable if it got here to our consumer’s consideration previous to broadcast that you just had this audio recording in your possession.”
In a follow-up letter despatched two days later, legal professionals accused Seven of “deliberate and calculated” conduct.
“The misuse of such paperwork is a severe matter as a result of it undermines the administration of justice,” the legal professionals wrote.
“It beggars perception {that a} 90-minute program was ready, apparently over many weeks if not months, and at no time was any contact made with our consumer or Community 10 to try to acquire their remark.”
Gillis Delaney legal professionals additionally despatched letters about stories in The Australian and the Each day Mail.
Mr Lehrmann pleaded not responsible to at least one cost of sexual assault. His trial was aborted resulting from jury misconduct and a retrial didn’t proceed resulting from issues about Ms Higgins’ psychological well being.
The cost in opposition to him was dropped and there have been no findings made in opposition to him.
[ad_2]
Source link