SYDNEY

FOLLOWING THE DEVASTATING findings against him at his defamation trial against Channel 10 and Lisa Wilkinson, the wry comment by Justice Michael Lee that Bruce Lehrmann had escaped the lions den only to go back for his hat may provide a crucial point for an appeal on the basis that Justice Lee erred at least in fact, if not in law, in his rather mixed metaphor, given the original prisoner of the Lions Den story in the Bible, Daniel, seems to have had no hat during the ordeal in which he is saved from the ravenous beasts by God, says a legal expert.

“The hat may be central to any appeal in this case,” said barrister Pumpiss Wynker KC, who specializes in media and prostitute law in New South Wales. “If you read the Bible, you will find no reference to any hat in the Daniel story. Indeed, Mr Lehrmann, himself, seems not to wear a hat, either for court or in his ordinary life, though this is only an observation and would require more research to establish with certainty.”

Others also see appeal material in the judge’s wit, and the possibility that Mr Lehrmann is a hat wearer.

“The Lehrmann legal team may be able to argue that Justice Lee’s remarks were in essence hattist,” said solicitor Roland Hague-Freisler of the Jeremy Thorpe Club, a private members vehicle based in London which focuses on conscious and unconscious errors of fact and law in legal judgments. “Lee, it could be argued, was essentially implying that those who wear hats, possibly including Mr Lehrmann, are by virtue of their need to recover the head covers, de facto held to a different standard than those who travel bare of head, so to speak. It’s an obtuse line of appeal, but may be worth pursuing given the shambles Lehrmann is currently facing. And remember, God did save Daniel in the end.”