Omnishambles Decoded: AI & Law
Unraveling Lehrmann's "delphic" judgment: AI extracts key lexicon and legal insights in minutes.
The recent defamation case between Bruce Lehrmann and Network Ten, alongside journalist Lisa Wilkinson, captivated Australia. The verdict delivered was multifaceted and had significant implications for various stakeholders. Navigating intricate legal judgments like this one, filled with specialised jargon and nuanced vocabulary, presents a formidable challenge for legal professionals. However, the rise of advanced AI tools is revolutionising legal practice, offering unprecedented efficiency and insight extraction.
Trigger Warning
This article discusses a legal case involving sexual assault, which may be distressing for some readers. If you or someone you know needs support, please get in touch with the National Sexual Assault, Domestic and Family Violence Counselling Service on 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) or visit their website at 1800RESPECT.org.au
Lehrmann v Network Ten Judgment
In the defamation case brought by Bruce Lehrmann against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson, the Federal Court of Australia ruled in favour of the defendants. Justice Michael Lee concluded that the broadcast of an episode of The Project, where Brittany Higgins alleged she was raped by Lehrmann in Parliament House in 2019, did not defame Lehrmann as the substantial truth defence was established. While the judge found Lehrmann raped Higgins, he also criticised the journalistic conduct of Network Ten and Wilkinson in their handling of the story.
Harnessing the Power of AI for Law
For this analysis, I employed Google AI's innovative large language model, Gemini Pro 1.5, to dissect the Lehrmann judgment and unveil its rich lexicon.
The sheer size of the Lehrmann judgment, spanning 1098 paragraphs and roughly 26,000 words (approximately 48 pages and 34,000 tokens), exemplifies the challenges legal professionals face. Sifting through such a document for key information and legal nuances would be incredibly time-consuming.
The results were astounding. Within minutes, I could extract a comprehensive list of uncommon vocabulary used by Justice Michael Lee, complete with definitions and contextual examples. This process, which would have taken hours manually, exemplifies AI's transformative potential in enhancing legal practice.
Exploring Justice Michael Lee’s Lexicon
The judgment was brimming with uncommon yet impactful vocabulary, showcasing Justice Lee's linguistic prowess. Here are a few examples:
Omnishambles (n.): A situation that has been comprehensively mismanaged, characterised by a string of blunders and miscalculations.
“It is a singular case: the underlying controversy has become a cause célèbre. Indeed, given its unexpected detours and the collateral damage it has occasioned, it might be more fitting to describe it as an omnishambles.”
Rorschach test (n.): A psychological test in which subjects' perceptions of inkblots are recorded and then analysed using psychological interpretation, complex algorithms, or both.
“...this dispute has become a proxy for broader cultural and political conflicts. This judgment is not written for people who have made up their mind before any evidence was adduced or are content to rest upon preconceived opinions...An astute observer would have gleaned from the trial that this case is not as straightforward as some commentary might suggest.”
Dramatis Personae (n.): The characters or persons represented in a drama, novel, etc.
“Most of the important facts are contested. This section records some uncontroversial details as to the principal participants, the publications, and this and related proceedings. The Dramatis Personae”
Preternatural (adj.): Beyond what is normal or natural.
“From a young age, Mr Lehrmann had a preternatural interest in politics. Upon leaving school, in 2014, he moved to Canberra to undertake study at the Australian National University. His first foray into politics came at the time he started university, as an electorate officer.”
Solecism (n.): A grammatical mistake in speech or writing.
“It is not entirely clear, but I think it is highly likely that Ms Higgins had at least two and possibly more shots at 88mph given the context of the earlier drinking ... Mr Lehrmann’s encouragement of the drinking, and the solecism of taking the benefit of shouting and not reciprocating.”
Pellucid (adj.): Translucently clear, easily understandable.
“But whatever else may be less than pellucid, one thing did emerge with clarity from the evidence of Ms Gain: that at 88mph “Brittany hooked up with Bruce” (Ex R59).”
Ebullient (adj.): Overflowing with enthusiasm and excitement.
“...Ms Higgins seems by this stage to be ebullient, putting her hands in the air and is evidently in high spirits …”
Shag on a rock (n.): A solitary person or thing.
“After being forsaken like a shag on a rock for an extended period and despite then making successful attempts to interact with some of the group on the larger table, Nick understandably left The Dock, no doubt ruing swiping right.”
Walter Mitty-like (adj.): Characterised by unrealistic daydreaming and fantastical aspirations.
“All these falsehoods, together with his Walter Mitty-like imaginings in skiting to Ms Gain about the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS), demonstrate that Mr Lehrmann had no compunction about departing from the truth if he thought it expedient.”
Éminence grise (n.): A powerful decision-maker or advisor who operates behind the scenes or in a non-official capacity.
“Ms Wilkinson was a fourth estate éminence grise with 40 years’ experience – she gave evidence she was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia in 2016 for, among other things, services to broadcast and print journalism.”
Delphic (adj.): Ambiguous or obscure in meaning, often intentionally so.
*“Moreover, there was one aspect of her evidence that was of importance, and which struck me as being a truthful recounting by Major Irvine of a genuine recollection. After noting Ms Higgins was “very down” on the Wednesday or Thursday after the incident, Major Irvine walked with Ms Higgins and had the following conversation with her (T1180.41–46):
I said to her words to the effect of, “Brit, are you okay?” And she said, “No.” She said, “On the weekend, … Bruce, Austin, Lauren and I went to 88. Bruce and I were in a[n] Uber to go home and he wanted to come back to Parliament House. He had some whisky to show me or something. When we came back to Parliament House, I fell asleep on the couch and I woke up and he was on top of me”.
...
Secondly, when asked in chief about declining Ms Gain’s invitation to kick on to 88mph, she responded by saying not only did she not want to mix work and pleasure by going to a club with people with whom she worked (which is entirely understandable), but also that she did not want to socialise or spend time with Mr Lehrmann because he had “bad vibes”, which she put down to “women’s intuition” (T1178.43–1179.3; T1196.4–15).
...
But what is evident upon close examination of the contemporaneous documentary material is that her general wariness of Mr Lehrmann is supported by her Telegram exchange with Ms Gain the following day (at 2:07pm) in which she explained, albeit Delphically: “Bruce is in a bit of trouble in our office [at the moment] so I tried to keep distance” (Ex R59).”*
Furphy (n.): A rumour or story, especially one that is untrue or absurd.
“Thirdly, the whole issue is a furphy in any event, as the reality is that the CCTV footage was, by reason of the prudent steps taken by the AFP, obtained for initial viewing and then preserved notwithstanding there was no extant complaint. It is, of course, to be expected that complainants may change their mind and hence the course of preserving the relevant CCTV footage was sensible and allowed it to be able to be played both at the criminal trial and in this proceeding. The implicit and sometimes express notion that there was something conspiratorial or improper about the way the CCTV footage was dealt with in 2019 does not bear scrutiny. I will return to this topic below when considering the conduct of Network Ten.”
Maladroit (adj.): Lacking in skill or dexterity, clumsy.
“But whatever shortcomings can be identified (including with the benefit of hindsight), she ensured she took considered advice from those in whom she reposed confidence, recorded, and acted upon that advice and, subject to the above, showed commonsense and compassion by her own lights (demonstrated by all her contemporaneous records, including text messages). Indeed, despite the express and implied criticisms of her, Ms Brown also went out of her way to reassure Ms Higgins and supported and assisted her in contacting the police. It is worth noting that the AFP officers Ms Brown assisted Ms Higgins in seeing promptly are (even now) described by Ms Higgins as having been “wonderful and were really lovely to me”, “amazing” and “great” (T821). As Ms Brown herself put it, she did her “professional best with what was given” to her (T2060.4; T2066.46). If one wants to get a real reflection of the contemporaneous 2019 views of Ms Higgins, well before the attitude of Ms Higgins towards Ms Brown evolved in 2021 consistently with the development of the broader narrative of a cover-up, they are reflected in her text message of 7 June 2019 (Ex R810): I wanted to say this in person but– I cannot overstate how much I’ve valued your support and advice throughout this period. You’ve been absolutely incredible and I'm so appreciative. Although she may not have been schooled by health and psychological professionals in dealing with sexual assaults, and may have not, by reason of her personality and age, been as empathetic as some others or have the acute sensitivity of many millennials. She no doubt could have done some things differently, for example, even though Ms Higgins did not raise it at the time, the unprompted failure to recognise the inappropriateness of holding the initial meeting with Senator Reynolds in the Minister’s office was maladroit.”
Topsy-turvy (adj.): In a state of complete disorder or confusion.
“One of the most topsy-turvy aspects of this case is that putting what occurred at this meeting and the events of the preceding days together, a clear picture emerges, but it is entirely at odds with the notion of an attempt being made to cover up an allegation of rape by discouraging it to be reported to the police.”
Grundyism (n.): A prudish or excessively conventional attitude.
*“These prim criticisms were never put to them for their comment, and as anyone with the life experience of being in pubs frequently would readily understand, drunk people are often able to compose themselves for a fleeting or short interaction and it is often difficult to form an immediate and accurate view as to the extent of intoxication of a person with whom one has not had any extended contact. I have little doubt that what happened with staff obtaining entry this night was no different than what would happen if staff presented themselves in the same way at entry points of countless professional offices throughout the country. On the information the security guards had available to them, they had no concerns that something untoward was going to happen. After having had the benefit of hearing them in the witness box, I have no doubt the security guards were conscientiously trying to do their jobs and the submissions critical of them, which smack of both hindsight distortion and Grundyism, ought not to be accepted.” *
Chorological (adj.): Relating to the study of the causal relations between geographical phenomena.
“As I have noted, obviously enough, both before, but especially after the 2020 Four Corners programme, Ms Higgins changing her mind and wanting to pursue her complaint would have been damaging to the Government’s political fortunes. I have no doubt those within the Government who knew of the allegation would have been concerned to ensure this did not happen. This is not to say the evidence establishes that they were taking any active steps, at least after the 2019 election, to silence Ms Higgins or to act in a way contrary to her own settled, informed and communicated judgment as to what was best for her (let alone pressuring or threatening her to do so). She was not being “forced” to do anything as that concept is properly understood. To the extent one can understand what “checking up” entailed, it is a not an intervention that could be relied upon as amounting to the serious wrongdoing of obstructing Ms Higgins pursuing a complaint of sexual assault.”
Archetype (n.): A very typical example of a certain person or thing.
“Without any intended disrespect or (I hope) stereotyping, Ms Brown struck me as an archetype of a successful professional administrator of a certain age and disposition. She had a conservative outlook and conducted herself in a careful and (generally) risk adverse way. Despite having her health seriously affected by allegations of shameful conduct and (like the other principal actors) experiencing a torrent of social media abuse, she gave evidence in a calm way, and was responsive to questions.”
Prophylactic (adj.): Intended to prevent disease.
“It was necessary to recognise that the information was out there in one form or another, and they may be some need, at some time, to deal with it. Going back to October 2019, Ms Higgins, as the person most intimately involved, was being told of this publicity risk and it was consistent with the interests of everyone that information about a complaint of sexual assault (that an alleged victim, for her own reasons, had decided not to pursue), not be the subject of unwanted publicity. Of course, if Ms Higgins changed her mind and enlivened her complaint, this information would spread and would likely become known as soon as any detailed investigation took place, including to members of the Liberal Party – but this had nothing to do with some sort of inappropriate conduct by the AFP. The apparent fear the AFP would not do its job if a complaint was pursued, even belatedly, is without rational foundation. I have set out what the facts are about this incident in some detail. It is now particularly instructive to contrast this series of actual events as revealed in the evidence, with Ms Higgins’ recounting of these events in her interview with Ms Maiden – which merit reproduction despite their length (Ex 50 (at 35–41)) ... Only someone prone to speculation and avid for scandal could view the objective facts as forming a reasonable basis to suggest the perpetuation of an inappropriate, indeed criminal, cover-up. In these circumstances, it would be entirely unsurprising that prior to the meeting of the Government Staff Committee on 1 April (discussed below) the Minister, acting on the advice she received from Assistant Commissioner Close and in light of the steps she had already taken, would take prophylactic steps to warn Ms Higgins of the possibility of unwanted publicity, including what that may mean in terms of an investigation and any need to prepare answers to questions that might be directed to the AFP. At this time, everyone’s interests were aligned.”
Svengali-like (adj.): Exerting a controlling or mesmeric influence on another, often in a manipulative or exploitative manner.
Verisimilitude (n.): The appearance of being true or real.
“Secondly, and relatedly, Mr Llewellyn knew it was Mr Sharaz who was “the one to get the story told”, had pitched the project to journalists he personally selected, and was putting himself forward as a conduit for communication. At first glance, one would have thought this would have prompted efforts to ensure all communications with Ms Higgins were as direct as possible; that Ms Higgins ought not have been patronised and it somehow assumed she was acting under the Svengali-like influence of Mr Sharaz, and it became evident she was very much aware of what was going on, but it was unusual that he be used as the conduit for information. Although reasonable minds might differ, Mr Llewellyn genuinely thought it was appropriate to use Mr Sharaz as a conduit in order to communicate with Ms Higgins (T1536.28–29). In fairness to him, it also became apparent that Ms Higgins was quite content for Mr Sharaz to be the primary point of contact and she shared Mr Sharaz’s views about the culpability and shortcomings of various politicians and they both very much wanted to hold them to account. But dealing with Ms Higgins in this way increased the need for care and caution.”
Open slather (n.): A situation in which there are no rules or restrictions.
“1044 I accept that senior politicians used the protection of absolute privilege to make representations which had the effect of endorsing the credibility of a complainant and prejudging that a “terrible” thing had taken place, despite an upcoming jury trial of an Australian citizen entitled to the presumption of innocence. To similar effect, senior counsel for Ms Wilkinson also cross-examined on a report of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Set the Standard: Report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces (Ex R54), of 30 November 2021, which notwithstanding Mr Lehrmann had been charged three and half months earlier and was scheduled to stand trial in 2022, stated in the Commissioner’s Foreword: The global #MeToo movement and associated momentum for reform has seen numerous brave women publicly sharing their experiences of workplace violence and harassment. In February 2021, Brittany Higgins courageously shared her experience. (Emphasis added) 1045 It is beyond the scope of these reasons to characterise these public comments while a criminal trial in relation to the complainant’s allegations was pending, but however one describes them, they did not later give members of the media, including Network Ten, open slather to pay no regard to an accused’s fundamental common law rights to a fair trial. The fact that others in positions of power made (much earlier) pre-trial comments endorsing Ms Wilkinson’s courage and thus necessarily endorsing her credibility in making the rape allegation may, however, be relevant to the extent of aggravation caused by the Logies speech, in that Ms Wilkinson says she merely repeated what had been said by others in public positions and so any incremental aggravation to Mr Lehrmann was minor, a matter to which I will return.”
Jejune (adj.): Naive, simplistic, and lacking in maturity or experience.
“136 Moreover, in assessing whether one has reached a state of reasonable satisfaction in making a finding of fact, it is jejune to proceed on the basis that rejecting part of an account of a witness of an event must mean one must reject all aspects of the account of the witness.”*
Lability (n.): The quality of being liable to change or alteration.
Frailty (n.): The condition of being weak and delicate.
“497 What is one to make of this? 498 It might have been said to be a possible pointer to a lack of reliability of this aspect of her evidence given at trial, but the point was not relied upon by those acting for Mr Lehrmann, presumably because what commonsense and the agreed facts go some way in explaining is that a tension or inconsistency of this type must not be dealt with superficially and there may be an entirely benign explanation for its existence. 499 If Ms Higgins had been the victim of the assault she recounted, this could simply reflect the lability and frailty of memory following such an event and how someone can come to process trauma and later recast a genuine recollection of passivity as being somehow inconsistent with how I expect she would have wanted to act in such a situation, that is, to demonstrate active and repeated resistance to her assaulter.”
Picayune (adj.): Of little value or importance, petty or trivial.
“This is far from a picayune point. I do not accept that having access to another source of funds to allow payment by way of card at The Dock (and possibly later at 88mph) is a “minute detail” or is something that would have been forgotten. Moreover, Mr Lehrmann did not say he may have had access to other funds but could not now recall – he repeatedly denied it. The purchase of drinks on behalf of Ms Higgins by Mr Lehrmann was, and must have been known by Mr Lehrmann to be, an important aspect of their interactions leading up to the incident later that night.”
Pashed (v.): Kissed passionately.
*“410 I am amply satisfied that I ought to reject the evidence of Mr Lehrmann and Ms Higgins which is inconsistent with this account of Ms Gain. In particular, I reject Mr Lehrmann’s denial of “pash[ing]” Ms Higgins (T297.5–11) and “any intimate behaviour” with Ms Higgins at 88mph (T301.16–17).” *
Hermetically sealed (adj.): Completely airtight, sealed so as to be completely isolated from outside influences.
*“The approach urged on me was less a principled focus on the matter in its character of conveying the defamatory imputation, but rather putting those parts of the programme that dealt specifically with the rape in a hermetically sealed box, entirely separate and insulated from any context that surrounded it. The evaluation of reasonableness must focus on the defamatory imputations, but the conduct which led to the publication must be considered by reference to all the circumstances, including how the Project team approached the task of publication.” *
Insouciance (n.): Casual lack of concern, nonchalance.
“There has been ample time for mature reflection and yet there is no recognition, even now, that the speech could have undermined the administration of justice and caused it to be disrupted. It is one thing to make a mistake, even a serious mistake – after all, to err is to be human. But I regret to say that the evidence in this case establishes that Ms Smithies approached this topic, and still approaches this topic, with insouciance. This reflects, in my view, a lack of proper appreciation of her professional obligations as a solicitor and her paramount duty to the Court and the administration of justice: see r 3.1, Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015 (NSW).”
Ahistorical (adj.): Ignoring or disregarding historical context or precedent.
“840 The view of Ms Wilkinson that the system of policing within Parliament House was “archaic” led to the conclusion that the AFP police “operated at the directive of the parliamentarians themselves” and “no one was independently policing potentially criminal behaviour within Parliament House” (Wilkinson 28 July 2023 (at [142])). This is, with respect, not only ahistorical and inaccurate but also, in circumstances where Ms Wilkinson and Mr Llewellyn were meant to be investigating an allegation of rape, represents a profound lack of understanding of basic constitutional principles. A similar separation of power exists in relation to policing within the Parliamentary precincts of every other state and territory and, as far as I am aware, other Parliaments around the world that are inheritors of the Westminster tradition of an Executive responsible to a unicameral or bicameral Parliament. Even going further afield, there is a reason why the United States Capitol Police, very much in the news at around the time of the interview with Ms Higgins, unlike other federal law enforcement agencies, are appointed by the legislative branch of the federal government of the United States.”*
Celerity (n.): Swiftness of motion or action.
“This conclusion makes it necessary to point out that in general, disbelief of one witness’s account does not establish the contrary, or that a witness giving a contrary account must be believed: Kuligowski v Metrobus [2004] HCA 34; (2004) 220 CLR 363 (at 385–386 [60] per Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon JJ). Of course, if I am ultimately unable to make a finding one way or another as to what actually happened, it is open to decide the issue on the basis that the party who bears the burden of proof on this issue (that is, the respondents) have failed to discharge their burden: Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmunds [1985] 1 WLR 948 (at 955–956 per Lord Brandon, Lords Fraser, Diplock, Roskill and Templeman agreeing). Relatedly, and importantly, given my rejection of Mr Lehrmann’s account of what went on, it must be borne in mind that a civil onus of proof is not discharged by mere disbelief in opposing evidence (see, for example, in the context of a criminal onus, Liberato v R (1985) 159 CLR 507 (at 515 per Brennan J)). That said, in this case, if I was to accept that consensual sex took place, then it is likely that Ms Higgins and Mr Lehrmann would have left together. This is because, on the assumption the sex was consensual, Mr Lehrmann was still behaving dishonourably by having sexual intercourse with Ms Higgins while in a relationship, and his girlfriend was trying to contact him – presumably trying to work out where he was and why he was there at 2:15am. Given he had satisfied himself, and that he knew his girlfriend was awake and was attempting to contact him, calling an Uber and getting out of the Ministerial private office with celerity (and leaving Ms Higgins undressed) is the action of a cad, but is nonetheless explicable.”
Discombobulated (adj.): Confused and disconcerted.
“What one can directly infer from these incontrovertible facts is that: (a) there was sufficient time for Mr Lehrmann and Ms Higgins to continue to drink whisky together and/or to have coitus; (b) Mr Lehrmann was either engaged in sexual intercourse, conduct preparatory to this act, or some other activity between 2:16 and 2:18am and did not appreciate his girlfriend was calling him, or was aware of the calls but ignored them; (c) by the end of the 40 minutes, Ms Higgins was sufficiently affected by alcohol not to leave the Suite to go home but in her state had come to be lying naked or semi-naked on the couch; and (d) one hour and fifty minutes later, Ms Higgins was, although not in obvious distress, sufficiently discombobulated that when seen by a uniformed stranger, did not interact verbally and did not move immediately to recover her modesty by putting on her dress or covering herself.”
Zapruder film (n.): A home movie that captured the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963, and became a crucial piece of evidence due to its detailed recording of the event.
“Mr Lehrmann must have known that the relevant CCTV footage (Ex R42 / Ex 17A) would be examined by some with the intensity that others analyse the Zapruder film. Hence, even if one was willing to give false evidence, it was odd to dissemble as to these matters. There was an inevitability the CCTV footage would demonstrate that: (a) he had purchased drinks for Ms Higgins and had seen her consume significant quantities of alcohol; (b) his prior explanation for how he had paid for the drinks would not pass muster; and (c) he spent most of the evening with Ms Higgins. Even if one puts the best complexion on what occurred, it confirms that Mr Lehrmann’s evidence is unreliable.”
All mouth and trousers (phrase): A person who boasts or makes grandiose claims but fails to deliver on them.
“But one must not be simplistic. A falsehood told by a witness will be especially serious if the maker is under a legal obligation to tell the truth. But irrespective of legal obligation, there are gradations of the seriousness of untruths: an untruthful person may just be all mouth and trousers; or be recklessly indifferent to the truth or, by way of compulsion, finds it difficult to discern between what is true and untrue; or finally, and most culpably, may be someone who tells calculated, deliberate lies.”
Understanding the Analogy: Lions' Den and Hat
Justice Lee concluded his judgment with a rather curious statement:
"Having escaped the lions' den, Mr. Lehrmann made the mistake of going back for his hat."
This analogy, while seemingly out of place in a legal document, offers a succinct and insightful commentary on Lehrmann's actions and the case's ultimate outcome.
Breaking Down the Analogy
Lions' Den (n.): A place or situation of great danger or hostility.
Hat (n.): A symbol of one's pride, reputation, or dignity.
Interpretation
The "lions' den" in this context refers to the initial allegation of rape and the subsequent criminal trial that Lehrmann faced. By having the charges dropped and the criminal proceedings abandoned, Lehrmann, in a sense, escaped the immediate danger and potential consequences of being found guilty. However, by choosing to pursue a defamation case against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson, he essentially returned to the "lions' den" of public scrutiny and legal proceedings. The "hat," representing his reputation and dignity, could be seen as something he was attempting to reclaim through the defamation suit. However, Justice Lee's verdict, finding the rape allegation to be true, ultimately resulted in further damage to his reputation and a loss of dignity.
The Analogy's Significance
This simple analogy effectively encapsulates the essence of Lehrmann's misstep. It highlights the inherent risk he took by choosing to pursue legal action that ultimately backfired and further tarnished his reputation.
Conclusion
The Lehrmann judgment, with its intricate legal arguments and rich vocabulary, underscores the challenges and complexities inherent in legal practice. However, using AI tools like Gemini Pro 1.5 demonstrates the potential to revolutionise how legal professionals approach such documents. By providing rapid access to key vocabulary, definitions, and contextual understanding, AI empowers lawyers to work more efficiently, gain deeper insights, and ultimately, contribute to a more accessible and equitable legal system. As AI technology evolves, its impact on the legal landscape will be transformative, paving the way for a more efficient and insightful future for legal professionals and their clients.
Excellent work Josh. This article is a major boon for individuals like myself who fancy uncommon vocabulary. Curious as to how you prompted the model?