Melbourne University Publishing announced plans to release a book reproducing Justice Michael Lee’s decision in Bruce Lehrmann’s defamation case before Christmas. The book would be available in paperback and e-book versions, with a foreword by sexual consent activist Chanel Contos. The publisher touted Lee’s detailed reasoning and trauma-informed judgment in the case, highlighting its significance for future sexual assault matters. However, the Federal Court has distanced itself from the project, stating that neither the court nor Justice Lee authorized or approved the publication in this format. The full judgment is already available on the Federal Court’s website for public access.
Bruce Lehrmann filed a defamation case against Network Ten and Lisa Wilkinson, which was ultimately dismissed by Justice Michael Lee in a landmark judgment. Melbourne University Publishing’s decision to release a book based on this case has sparked controversy, as the Federal Court clarified that they have no connection to the project. Despite the publisher’s intentions to provide insight into Lee’s reasoning and approach in the case, they did not seek authorization from the court or directly involve Justice Lee in the content of the introduction. The book’s cover art, titled “He went back for his hat,” hints at the complexity of the case and the legal issues involved.
The book’s blurb on the MUP website emphasized Justice Lee’s meticulous analysis of the evidence and his trauma-informed judgment, which has implications for future sexual assault cases. The decision to publish this judgment in a commercial format raises questions about the ethical and legal implications of using court decisions for profit. While the case itself was notable for dismissing a defamation suit, the book’s release without approval from the court or Justice Lee raises concerns about the accuracy and context in which the judgment is presented to the public. The Federal Court made it clear that they have not endorsed or collaborated with Melbourne University Press on this project.
The Federal Court’s spokesperson stated that Justice Lee’s full judgment is already available on the court’s website for anyone interested in accessing it. By making the decision public, the court upholds its commitment to open and accessible justice. However, the publication of the judgment in a commercial book format without authorization raises questions about the responsibilities of publishers and the potential impact on future legal proceedings. Any appeal process regarding the defamation case would not be influenced by this book, according to the court’s statement, placing the responsibility on Melbourne University Press for its content and distribution.
Overall, the controversy surrounding the publication of Justice Michael Lee’s defamation case decision in book format highlights the complexities of legal proceedings and the ethical considerations involved in using court judgments for commercial purposes. While the book may provide insights into Lee’s reasoning and approach in the case, the Federal Court has distanced itself from the project and clarified that neither the court nor Justice Lee authorized or approved the publication. With the full judgment already available to the public on the court’s website, the book’s release by Melbourne University Publishing without official endorsement raises questions about the appropriateness and accuracy of presenting legal decisions in a commercial format.