Bruce Lehrmann defamation case: Enter Spotlight's Mark Lewellyn

Llewellyn didn’t say this, but one can only be grateful for the efforts of paid Thai masseuses. Without their alleged involvement, who knows if Spotlight would have been able to broadcast its riposte to journalism that had “lost its objectivity”, and shed new light on the story that had “captivated” a nation.

“For instance,” Llewellyn continued, “the vision of the couple walking down Parliament House after the evening out, which had never been shown and, fortuitously, and not without a little effort, we were able to get, you were able to put context for the stories on both sides.”

But it came at a cost. And no, Llewellyn wasn’t talking about Lehrmann’s $4000 a fortnight rental in beachside Maroubra.

“I did [lose] very good friends,” he said, cracking with emotion. Which had him asking: “To preserve some of the friendships I had, do I leave certain bits out?

“But in doing so, I’m asking what am I leaving out that the audience will never see. What is it about that story they will never understand? The compromises I will make will compromise the story.”

Truly! When Llewellyn took the stage to tell the audience about his brave, principled decision to give a microphone to an accused rapist (who has always denied the charge, and didn’t testify at his aborted Canberra trial), no one even knew the program had paid Lehrmann for his rent.

Until recently, no one knew about the $10,000 of massages, the golf trips, the pricey dinners at Franca or Spice Temple or Chophouse, or the illicit drugs ex-Seven producer Taylor Auerbach’s affidavit says Seven paid for in an effort to secure the interview of the year.

Could any of that have coloured how Betty from Blacktown viewed the story, sitting at home on her couch cradling a cup of tea on Sunday night? Could these in-kind payments have lessened the vigour with which “attack dog” Liam Bartlett pursued Lehrmann, or at the very least how said pursuit was edited, given Seven presumably wanted Lehrmann to keep schtum on its own inducements to him?

Indeed, could Llewellyn have lost a few more friends had the program laid the whole thing out? Suppose he’ll soon know.

Auerbach’s lurid (and receipt-heavy) affidavit has derailed the country’s most-watched defamation case, causing Justice Michael Lee to hold back his gavel only days before judgment was due. Defamation law being what it is, Lee’s assessment could end up defining how Australia sees the sordid tale of Brittany Higgins′ disputed rape in Parliament House in 2019.

It could also do a lot for how Australians see journalism. Sure, it’s Network Ten’s which is on trial, and it is in its defence that these latest claims, of arguable relevance, have been aired. But don’t you reckon assessments about the grubbiness of Seven’s tactics are just as likely to stick?

In a statement issued on Tuesday night, Seven says it did not “condone or authorise” the alleged payments, while dismissing the “false and misleading” claims in Auerbach’s affidavit.

Llewellyn is no stranger to the power of salacious (if disputed) court filings, having filed his own affidavit in 2006 accusing then-Nine CEO Eddie McGuire of saying the network should “bone” Jessica Rowe – that is, sack her – from a morning show (McGuire argues he said “burn”). This was after Nine, which owns this newspaper, sued Llewellyn for defecting to Seven. He was years later suspended from Seven’s Sunday Night after a punch-up with a producer. Not Auerbach, mind you, who has just as colourful a clippings file.

When a young turk at The Daily Telegraph (where he scored a job after winning $50,000 on Millionaire Hot Seat), Auerbach’s editors seemed to delight in sending him on weird and wacky assignments. Once, he hit Oxford Street in Sydney to investigate whether “beer goggles” were real (i.e. whether drunk women would find him attractive). Another time, he went within metres of the ebola virus at a biological bunker. Every gonzo report was accompanied by numerous photos of Auerbach in a biosuit or other relevant costume.

Later, he drew global headlines when he spent three months at the Daily Mail’s then-nascent antipodean outpost, only to defect back to News Corp in apparent dismay at its rival’s “churnalism”. Reading the thing evidently wasn’t enough to see its yarns were pilfered, but hey, wasn’t his reversed defection a great yarn for News Corp.

Former Seven producer Taylor Auerbach last week. James Brickwood

This is ancient history in the Sydney media game, but we figure Auerbach’s past informs his capabilities. See, some journalists would baulk at being asked to spend days wining and dining Lehrmann. But like many reared from youth in the gruelling fires of tabloid journalism, Auerbach knows how to suffer for his craft. Until Spotlight left him out of the spotlight on its Walkleys nomination, and, well, the rest is history.

Seven is unlikely to entirely distance itself from the Auerbach wrecking ball, for all its trying. Can the network paint him as a renegade producer out there freelancing? Or was he doing the program’s dirty work?

And crucial work it was. After all, we’ve heard Nine’s rival 60 Minutes was also keen, talking to Lehrmann’s representatives about an interview in November 2022, right after the rape trial was aborted. Lehrmann was said to have wanted somewhere north of $250,000 for exclusive access. That caused 60 Minutes to end the discussions. By then, Lehrmann was already within the Auerbach embrace.

Part of Auerbach’s version of events includes photos taken of a computer screen showing Higgins’ texts and emails, including with Peter FitzSimons.

Screenshot from Auerbach’s affidavit showing a message between Higgins and FitzSimons. Court document

These were the ones allegedly (and likely improperly) provided to Seven by Lehrmann from his aborted rape trial, which formed the basis of the program. And the reflection, just perceptible, on the computer screen is a man with a bald chrome dome, wearing thick black designer glasses. Oh Mark, you klutz.

To make things worse, Auerbach’s affidavit includes metadata that suggests the Higgins photos were taken in the Sydney home rented for Lehrmann.

At SXSW, Llewellyn explained the on-air questioning of Lehrmann (“we said we’d cover off everything”), but detoured by lamenting that “completely adversarial journalism” can be a turn-off. “[The] gotcha questions have a role in the way that people perceive journalists, and not necessarily in a good way.”

Too true, Mark. Although, what do these new if untested allegations – that Seven paid for Lehrmann’s use of illicit drugs and prostitutes, that Lehrmann handed over his accuser’s confidential communications from his aborted rape trial, that Spotlight’s EP can be seen taking a photo of said accuser’s texts on a computer screen – do, exactly, to the public’s perception of journalists?

“Hi Steve, mission finally accomplished,” Llewellyn texted a group chat involving Auerbach and supervising producer Steve Jackson (almost of NSW Police fame) in March last year, per the screenshots in the affidavit, arranging a time to meet to discuss a story plan.

“Brilliant work gents,” Jacko replies. “Brilliant exclusive. Well played.”